Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aldridge Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Clacton Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Redcar Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Swinton and Pendlebury Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PROVINCIAL OFFICERS (SALARIES).

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the governor of Madras has taken action under the special responsibility vested in him by Section 52 (c) of the Government of India Act for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of

the members of the public services in regard to the reduction of the salaries of officers in the provincial services in Madras ordered by the Ministry in that province?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that no occasion has arisen for the Governor of Madras to take action under the special responsibility referred to.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Have any reductions been made?

Earl Winterton: The Madras Government are not proposing to reduce the pay of holders of existing posts who were recruited to the provincial services before 1st April, 1937.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Governor of Assam proposes to take any action in respect of the refusal of the legislative assembly in that province to allot funds for the payment of the salaries of the staff of the commissioners of divisions?

Earl Winterton: Yes, Sir; appropriate action will be taken.

EXCLUDED AND PARTIALLY EXCLUDED AREAS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether consideration has been or will be given to the appointment of qualified persons to have charge of the interest of the primitive peoples in the districts scheduled as excluded and partially excluded areas under the Government of India Order, 1936?

Earl Winterton: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the appointment of special officers to advise the Governors in the discharge of their duties under the Act in relation to excluded and partially excluded areas. So far as my Noble Friend is aware no Governor has as yet felt it necessary to appoint a special officer for this purpose.

Mr. Harvey: Have the Government considered the appointment of special officers with the object of advising these primitive people in remote districts?

Earl Winterton: I think it would be best if I refer the hon. Member to the con-


cluding paragraphs of the dispatch of the Government of India, 24th January, 1935, which has been published, and which deals with the subject in full.

INDEPENDENCE.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement on the subject of the movement in India to declare complete independence?

Earl Winterton: I have no information of any "movement in India to declare complete independence" but it is the case that certain political organisations have adopted the attainment of complete independence as their aim.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is it a fact that the Ministry in the United Provinces proposes to declare that 26th January shall be celebrated as Independence Day?

Earl Winterton: I think the hon. Member should put that question on the Order Paper.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it a fact that the organisation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is in control of five Provinces of India?

Earl Winterton: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that for years past it has been the declared policy of certain bodies to aim at independence, but I think the Government of India can be trusted to deal with any movement which is unconstitutional.

POLICE PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what reports he has received from the Governors of provinces in respect of police behaviour and their treatment of arrested persons?

Earl Winterton: I have had no reports from Governors on these matters, which are within the responsibility of Provincial Ministers.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the noble Lord ask his Noble Friend to secure these reports, as they will be of great importance to this country in view of the Kirod case?

Earl Winterton: I do not think the Secretary of State has any constitutional powers under the Government of India Act to do so. This matter under the

Government of India Act is strictly within the competence of the Provincial Governments.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that the police of India are responsible to the Governor, and that the Governor is responsible to this House?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir; I am afraid the hon. Member is incorrect in his description of the constitutional position. It is clearly laid down in the Government of India Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can obtain from His Majesty's agent with General Franco any information as to executions at Bilbao?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am informed that a number of executions have taken place at Bilbao since the insurgent occupation of that town, but it is naturally impossible to obtain exact figures. His Majesty's Government have strongly represented to the contending parties in Spain the desirability of refraining from further executions in order to avoid prejudicing the prospects of negotiations for a general exchange of prisoners and other detained persons which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, are at present in progress. At the same time the British Agent at Salamanca recently received an assurance that the Basque prisoners who are at present the object of negotiations between the contending parties were in no danger.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Has the right hon. Gentleman received similar information from the other side?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. We are in constant touch with both sides in order that the exchange may be carried through, and in the meantime we are asking that there should be no further executions while the details are being carried out.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it not a fact that there is no longer any truth as to the shooting of prisoners on the Government side?

Mr. Eden: My object is to ensure that there shall be no shooting on either side.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask whether before these executions took place those who were executed had a fair trial?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Salamanca authorities dispose of any funds or property in this country which could be distrained upon in the event of just claims for damage to British ships and British lives not being admitted and met?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give any reliable figures with regard to the extent of the funds or property of which the Salamanca authorities dispose in this country.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Can we have an assurance that the Government are not attempting to dissuade any persons who have been injured by General Franco's actions from pursuing him in the courts of this country?

Mr. Eden: No action of the kind has been contemplated.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are His Majesty's Government prepared to distrain upon these funds in the event of these just claims not being met?

Mr. Eden: As regards our position, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement I made last week on this subject.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are not the Government giving compensation in the case of members of His Majesty's forces who have lost their lives as the result of certain actions?

Mr. Eden: I understand that is so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the negotiations for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Spain; what is the point reached in these negotiations; what is the next step to be taken; and what is the reason for delay about a matter to which the parties concerned have in principle agreed?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made towards the evacuation of foreign combatants from Spain?

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has

yet decided as to the meaning to be placed upon the term "substantial progress" in connection with the withdrawal of non-Spanish nationals from the conflict in Spain?

Mr. Eden: As I have already explained in a reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 1st February, a draft resolution, to be passed eventually by the Non-intervention Committee, has, I understand, been prepared and submitted to the participating Governments by their delegates on the Committee. The resolution will answer the points raised in the replies from the two parties in Spain to the Non-intervention Committee's resolution of 4th November last. The resolution is also to contain a re-affirmation of the undertakings entered into by the participating Governments; and detailed information regarding the work of the Commissions. Further, it will deal with methods to be employed for restoring and strengthening the control of land and sea frontiers and the conditions of the grant of belligerent rights to both sides in Spain. I understand that agreement has been reached on almost all points of this draft resolution, but, as I have frequently informed the House, the proceedings of the Nonintervention Committee are confidential and I am not in a position to make statements regarding remaining points still under discussion by that body.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it the case that this step was agreed to in principle last September, and that not one foreign national has been withdrawn from Spain in consequence of that step being taken?

Mr. Eden: The plan was agreed to, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware of the many points which have to be settled in connection with it.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the meaning which is to be placed upon the term "substantial progress" is one of the matters still under discussion by the Committee?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Gentleman can assume it is one of the points of difficulty.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that all the progress that could have been made during the four months has been made?

Mr. Eden: I only wish that we had gone a little faster.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response has been made by the insurgent authorities to the communication of the British commercial agent at Salamanca following the series of outrages committed by sea and by air upon British shipping proceeding on its lawful occasions and promising destruction to any submerged submarines and reprisals in retaliation for any air attack?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the British agent at Salamanca has received a written reply from the insurgent authorities. The text of this reply has not yet reached me.

Mr. Adams: Is it not now clear beyond question that a rebel victory would militate against British interests?

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the approximate total amount of claims presented or noted for presentation on behalf of British subjects or companies and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom against the Governments of Barcelona and Salamanca, respectively?

Mr. Eden: The number of claims actually presented against the Governments of Barcelona and Salamanca is relatively small but owing to the fact that in certain cases claims have been submitted to the competent authorities by His Majesty's representatives in Spain or direct by the claimants themselves without informing me of the particulars, I am not able to give even an approximate estimate of the amounts involved. As regards those claims noted for presentation in due course it is even more difficult to give an estimate of the total amounts involved. The number of claims so noted is very considerable, but in many cases no indication of the sums claimed has been given owing to the fact that the losses are still accumulating, or that it has not been possible yet to assess the extent of the damage.

Mr. Shinwell: Have the claims presented to the Barcelona Government been met, and does that also apply to the Salamanca Government?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, the claims have not been met. In general, the claims, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the

answer, have not been presented, for a variety of reasons.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a full report of the sinking of the "Alcira" on 4th February has now been received?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. A full report has now been received including a statement from the master of the steamship "Alcira." From this report the following information is derived. Shortly after 6.30 a.m. on 4th February when the "Alcira" was 20 miles south-east of Barcelona, two aircraft were sighted steering towards the ship. The aircraft were seaplanes, two-seaters, painted grey. They were both of the same type and their rudders had a black St. Andrew's cross painted on them. The ship was at that time flying the new red ensign and red, white and blue stripes, each 2½ feet wide, were painted on the top and sides of the bridge. The aircraft circled the ship three times and then fired a machine-gun, using tracer ammunition, ahead of the ship. The aircraft, flying low, then signalled by light to the ship, the only word visible being "boat." As soon as this signal was made, the Captain stopped engines and gave the order for the crew to go to the boats. There was no time for more than one boat to be lowered and before this boat was lowered, three bombs were dropped by the aircraft and struck the ship. Two further bombs struck the ship after the boat had got away, and the ship sank shortly afterwards.

Mr. Henderson: Is there any evidence of the nationality of the aircraft?

Mr. Eden: Not beyond that which I have given in my answer, which, I think, shows that they were attached to the Insurgent forces.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement with reference to the recent interview given by Sir Henry Chilton, Ambassador to Spain, in which he describes the Government to which he is accredited as "the Reds"?

Mr. Eden: Since the hon. Member questioned me on this point on 9th February, I have made further inquiries of Sir Henry Chilton. The Ambassador has assured me quite categorically that he did not use the expression referred to during


the interview in question. I am glad to have an opportunity to make this clear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, under the plans being prepared by the Non-intervention Committee for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain, the foreign troops who leave Spain will take away with them the arms and munitions which they took in;
(2) whether, under the plans being prepared by the Non-intervention Committee for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain, provision will be made for the withdrawal of all foreigners now serving in the naval forces of the two contending parties before any grant of belligerent rights is made?

Mr. Eden: As I have frequently informed the House, the proceedings of the Non-intervention Committee are confidential. I am not, therefore, at liberty to make a statement in regard to matters which are under discussion by that body. In connection, however, with the grant of belligerent rights, the hon. Member will remember that the United Kingdom proposals which are the basis of the scheme under discussion by the committee, provide that such rights will be granted after a substantial withdrawal of foreign volunteers, not the total withdrawal of any particulars section of volunteers.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May we take it that the term "substantial withdrawal" means the withdrawal of the naval officers and men who are at present serving in General Franco's fleet before belligerent rights are granted?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can possibly argue the definition of "substantial withdrawal" here, but the House may rest assured that we naturally desire an interpretation which we regard as satisfactory.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a ship, convoyed by a number of Italian destroyers, landed a large quantity of war material at Cadiz on 31st January; and what action he proposes to take in view of this fresh violation of the Non-intervention Agreement?

Mr. Eden: I have no information which in any way confirms the statement made by the hon. Member, but I am making inquiries.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Foreign Secretary not able to get information which is published in all the authoritative Press of the world?

Mr. Eden: It has been my not infrequent experience that some of these rumours have not been justified.

Mr. Strauss: When a very serious statement of this sort is published and generally accepted—[HON. MEMBERS:"No!"]—when it has been accepted by large sections of the people in this and other countries, is it not the duty of the Government to make immediate inquiries to see whether it is true or not?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman looks at my answer he will see that I have said that I am making inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that although the right hon. Gentleman always disclaims any information on that point, it has subsequently transpired that it has been verified?

Mr. Eden: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's form of memory.

Captain McEwen: Would the hon. Gentleman give a definition of what he means by "the authoritative press of the world"?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many prisoners of non-Spanish nationality are held at present by each party in Spain; particularly, how many Italians and Germans are held by the Barcelona Government and French and Russians by General Franco; and whether he has communicated these figures to the Nonintervention Committee?

Sir H. Croft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate number of prisoners from the international brigade fighting on the side of the Popular Front Government during the Spanish civil war taken by General Franco; and which countries have provided the largest number of combatants in this form of intervention?

Mr. Eden: Apart from their general efforts to secure the exchange of prisoners in the Spanish conflict, His Majesty's Government have no concern with any prisoners of non-Spanish nationality, except British prisoners. I am, therefore, unable to give the particulars asked for by my hon. and gallant Friends.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that a very large number of French and Russian prisoners are held by the national forces?

Mr. Eden: There are prisoners of various nationalities held by both sides, but I have not any figures.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are there any British prisoners held by Franco?

Sir H. Croft: Is it not essential, in view of the question of non-intervention and the question of withdrawal of volunteers, that the facts should be obtained, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to do so?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend is setting me a hard task to classify all the prisoners on both sides by their nationalities. I am afraid I have no information which would enable me to do so.

Sir H. Croft: Will it not be essential for the Non-intervention Committee to obtain that information?

Mr. Eden: I think it is essential to get them out of the way, whether they are prisoners or combatants.

Sir A. Sinclair: Is it not very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should be harassed by this stream of supplementary questions?

Sir H. Croft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the approximate number of foreign bombers and fighting aeroplanes in the service of the Popular Front government in Spain; what percentage this represents of the total number of aeroplanes available to that government; and what is the proportion of these aeroplanes provided by Russia and France, respectively?
(2) whether, in view of representations on the subject of air-bombing in Spain, he can state the number of air-raids by both sides during the war upon undefended towns and villages remote from the firing line and not coming within the category of those embracing naval bases, docks, harbours, aerodromes, munition centres, or military garrisons?

Mr. Eden: I have not sufficient information to enable me to answer with accuracy these questions.

Sir H. Croft: In view of the importance of this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive any informa-

tion which has been gained by Members of this House on either side in Spain such as the facts as to the number of bombers actually brought down?

Mr. Eden: I shall be, of course, glad to receive any information.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the discussion about the two sides in Spain, would it not be advisable to remove the "crazy gang" from this side of the House to the other side?

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take the responsibility of presenting to the Non-intervention Committee the communication from the Spanish Government declaring that submarines and other warships now operating in the Mediterranean on behalf of the Spanish insurgents formerly belonged to Italy?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. In respect of submarines no further action is called for beyond that already taken by His Majesty's Government and announced to this House. In respect of other warships the Spanish Government has not asked His Majesty's Government to present the communication, to which the hon. Member refers, to the Non-intervention Committee.

Mr. Thurtle: Has the fact that these submarines originally belonged to Italy already been brought to the notice of the Non-intervention Committee?

Mr. Eden: I have said that the Spanish Government have not said so in their communication made to the Non-intervention Committee.

Mr. Thurtle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this matter of sufficient gravity and importance to be brought to the notice of the Non-intervention Committee?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir; I do not think the submarine question is, particularly in view of the steps taken last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (VISA FEES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries in Europe have foregone fees for visas on passports issued to American tourists; and, in view of the advantages to be gained in attracting tourists to this coun-


try, will he consider adopting a similar policy in this country?

Mr. Eden: According to the information available in the Foreign Office the United States Government have concluded agreements with the following European countries for the abolition of visa fees: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Latvia. As the hon. Member is aware, an arrangement has already been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government by which fees for visas have been mutually reduced by four-fifths as from 1st April last.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States Government have made an offer of complete abolition of these fees?

Mr. Eden: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING OF CIVILIANS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the bombing of civilians in Barcelona and other Spanish towns, he will give notice to the governments concerned that this country proposes to allow the importation into Spain of anti-aircraft guns and ammunition unless this bombing stops by a certain definite date?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the desire of His Majesty's Government to further an agreement for the abolition of this type of bombing and of the initiative which they have taken in this matter. In respect of the export of arms from this country to Spain, His Majesty's Government are bound by the international undertakings assumed by them as a signatory of the Non-intervention Agreement. I am not at present prepared to propose any modification of this Agreement.

Colonel Wedgwood: Unless this is stopped, will this means of defence be allowed to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. and gallant Member can be assured that these relevant considerations are in my mind.

Mr. Mander: Are not Germany and Italy equally bound by the agreement?

Mr. Eden: Every one is bound by it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what is meant by the term "civilian population" seeing that every able-bodied man and woman in a country at war is taking some active part in the war?

Mr. Eden: We are all conscious of the difficulties of this problem, but that does not make us any the less anxious to solve it.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations to the Pope as to the desirability of a denunciation by him of the bombing of civilians in Spain by both sides have yet been made; and, if so, what effect has been produced?

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now sought the good offices of the Vatican in approaching the contending Governments in Spain with a view to their mutual renunciation of the bombardment of unfortified centres, and the consequent suffering and loss of life among non-combatants?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government have not approached the Vatican direct, but they have informed the French Government that they are now prepared to associate themselves with such initiative as the French Government may decide to take in the matter, whether through the Vatican or through other channels.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we did not approach the Vatican direct seeing that we have an Ambassador there?

Mr. Eden: The French Government first approached us in a public statement made by the French Prime Minister, and, therefore, we replied that we associated ourselves with them.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the negotiations relative to a cessation of the practice of bombing civilian populations?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is presumably referring to- the desire of His


Majesty's Government to secure general international agreement on this subject. In that respect I have nothing at present to add to my statement in the course of the Debate on 2nd February.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the views of the Government been brought to the notice of General Franco through the British Agent at Salamanca?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, not long ago.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: And to the other side also?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the proposal of the Netherlands Government to the Oslo Powers that the Italian conquest of Ethiopia should be recognised, he will give an assurance to the House that His Majesty's Government are not considering any such recognition?

Mr. Eden: The attitude of His Majesty's Government still remains as explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on 5th May last.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the recent scurrilous Italian Press attack made upon him as a result of his refusal to sacrifice League principles will have no effect on public opinion in this country?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would it not be advantageous to have this vendetta ended, and to act in accordance with the realities of the situation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a pledge that he will not make a diplomatic bargain with the principle of international law, to which the United States Government attach particular importance?

Mr. V. Adams: How could it be advantageous for us to condone the collapse of the rule of law?

Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman leave the official Opposition to pursue this vendetta alone?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can tell the House what information

he has received concerning the passage of Italian troops through the Suez Canal on their way to Abyssinia?

Mr. Eden: I regret that I have no statement to make on this subject.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that at present Ethiopian forces which enter British territory are immediately disarmed while Italian troops and arms for use in Abyssinia are regularly permitted to cross British territory, he will arrange that this difference in treatment shall no longer be permitted?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Italian troops and arms for use in Abyssinia are in general not permitted to cross British; territory. The only exception to this rule is that on an undelimited section of the northern frontier of Kenya, the Italian authorities have been permitted to use a track connecting two areas under Italian occupation. This permission has been granted without prejudice to the ultimate settlement of the question whether the track is in Kenya or Ethiopia.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (JEWS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the decisions taken at the League of Nations Council with regard to the position of minorities in Rumania; and, in particular, what action was taken as the result of the petition from the World Jewish Congress?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my Noble Friend gave to a similar question by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member, for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel-Wedgwood) on 7th February. The procedure which I described on what occasion-is being applied to the petition from the World Jewish Congress.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the representations made recently by His Majesty's representative at Bucharest to the Rumanian Government with regard to its treatment of its Jewish minority; whether His Majesty's representative has instruct-


tion to observe how the assurances given by the Rumanian Government are carried out; and whether he has presented any further report on the matter?

Mr. Eden: I have been in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest on matters relating to minorities in Rumania. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Government of which M. Goga was the head has recently resigned. In the circumstances I am unable to make a fuller statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL SHIPS (JAPAN).

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Japanese Government to the British Note on the question of naval construction in Japan?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The reply of the Japanese Government to the British Note of 5th February on the subject of Japanese naval construction was handed to His Majesty's Representative at Tokyo on 12th February. Replies in similar terms were at the same time communicated to the French and United States representatives. In their reply, the full text of which has already been made public, the Japanese Government regret that they are unable to comply with the desire of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to receive certain information and assurances regarding Japanese intentions in connection with the construction of capital ships and cruisers. In addition the Japanese Government are unable to accept the proposal contained in the final paragraph of the British Note for consultation on the question of the future limitation of tonnage of vessels and calibre of guns. The new situation which has thus arisen as a result of the Japanese reply will now be examined by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in consultation with the other naval Powers with whom they are in treaty relations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (ANTI-EPIDEMIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the English-speaking group led by Dr. R. C. Robertson, appointed under the League

of Nations plan of anti-epidemic assistance to China, has been fully constituted, and when it will proceed to China?

Mr. Eden: The English-speaking group has been constituted under the leadership of Dr. R. C. Robertson, and is already in China.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement specifying the foreign Governments which are in default upon the service of bonds issued in the United Kingdom; whether he can give an estimate of the loss during the year 1937 to British bondholders consequent upon such defaults; and whether he is satisfied that British interests are being adequately represented with a view to obtaining redress?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on 1st February; the answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it desirable that the bondholders concerned should have no say in the selection of the members of the Council of Foreign Bondholders, and no control whatever over their activities?

Major Hills: asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the heavy losses to investors, to the revenue, and to this country as a whole which are involved by defaults on foreign loans owned by bondholders in this country; and what action His Majesty's Government have taken or propose to take to protect the interests of bondholders in such cases?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government view with the gravest concern the loss inflicted, both on individuals and on the country, as the result of defaults on foreign loans. They regard the whole subject as one of very great importance, and I am glad to have


this opportunity of making a statement upon the matter.
The Corporation of Foreign Bondholders is an independent statutory body, which was incorporated in 1873 and reconstituted by Special Act of Parliament in 1898. The Government recognise the Council of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders as the body entrusted by Parliament with the duty of representing the interests of the bondholders in all matters arising out of defaults or threatened defaults by foreign Governments, States or municipalities. The corporation has throughout its life rendered the most valuable services, and in recent years its activities have been steadily increasing. I was, therefore, very glad to learn that, upon the conclusion of his term of office as Governor-General of Canada, Lord Bessborough had consented to accept the position of President of the council. Since then the council have been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of the representatives of the Association of Investment Trusts and the British Insurance Association. The council have always maintained the closest contact with the Treasury and the Foreign Office and in the last few years this contact has been continuous.
In the case of a default, or threatened default, His Majesty's Government expect the foreign Government or authority concerned to enter into negotiations with the council. His Majesty's Government always follow such negotiations very closely and give to the council their fullest support. Where no acceptable agreement is reached they are always prepared to consider what further steps can usefully be taken. I consider that the arrangements which I have described afford the best and most practical means of safeguarding the interests of this country in this matter.

Colonel Nathan: Is it not a fact that one of the very practical difficulties that have shown themselves has been that foreign Governments find that the Council of Foreign Bondholders can bind nobody—not even a single bondholder?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that British investors in foreign securities have over the last 70 or 80 years lost over £2,000,000,000?

Colonel Wedgwood: In view of the fact that one-quarter of all the losses by

British bondholders fall on the Treasury of this country, will the right hon. Gentleman prevent any further losses of this description being made?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Are the Council permitted by their constitution to deal with defaults such as that of the Government of Alberta?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Sir J. Mellor: Might I put to the right hon. Gentleman the question which I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to which he did not reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GOODS (ADVERTISING).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department particulars of the manner in which his Department are at present participating in the various schemes that have been brought to the attention of his Department for the purpose of advertising British goods abroad?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir, as there are none.

Mr. Day: Have any financial contributions at all been made?

Mr. Hudson: There is no practical scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major Despencer-Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consult actuarial experts with a view to the possibility of formulating a scheme for the State insurance of farmers against foot-and-mouth diesase and against the whole loss incurred by them, in the public interest, when their animals are slaughtered, including loss of profits, whereby their business is destroyed?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The question of the State insurance of stock owners against losses which may be incurred through the compulsory slaughter of stock for the purpose or eradicating foot-and-mouth disease was considered by the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease in 1924. In their report (Cmd. 2350) the Committee expressed the opinion that a


compulsory insurance scheme would be both costly and administratively difficult owing to the constantly varying number of stock in the hands of stock owners and the abnormal risks involved. The Committee also drew attention to serious objections, from the point of view of public policy, to such a scheme. I see no reason to dissent from the views on this subject expressed by the Departmental Committee.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the matter of compensation, dairy farmers are treated worse than ordinary stockholders?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir; I am not aware of that. The fact is that the terms of compensation are laid down in the Statute, and are beyond my control.

MILK NUTRITION COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the report of the Milk Nutrition Committee will be published, including the result of the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Dairy Research on the feeding of calves on raw and pasteurised milk?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Milk Nutrition Committee have already published one report dealing with experiments on rats at the National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading, and at the Rowett Institute, Aberdeen. I understand that two further reports, dealing respectively with the work at these two institutions on the feeding of calves on raw and pasteurised milk and with an investigation into the effect of dietary supplements of raw and pasteurised milk on the growth and health of school children, are in preparation and should be published shortly. The Committee then propose to issue a final report dealing with their inquiries as a whole.

Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to secure that these reports are published before, he introduces Governmental legislation relating to milk?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give a promise, because the committee must be the best judge of how soon it can perform its important task, but I will bear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question in mind.

LIVESTOCK (QUALITY CERTIFICATION).

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many animals were presented for certification under the Livestock Industry Act, how many were rejected, and how many were awarded the quality subsidy, during the period 1st August, 1937, to 31st December, 1937, at the Malton, Seamer, and Scots Gap certification centres, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply includes a table of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT:

Following is the reply:


NUMBER OF ANIMALS presented and rejected, and number certified for the quality subsidy during the period 1st August, 1937, to 31st December, 1937, at Malton, Seamer Junction, and Scots Gap certification centres.


Certification Centres.
Number of Cattle.


Presented for Certification.
Rejected.
Certified as of Quality Standard.


Malton
2,514
474
214


Seamer Junction.
2,824
496
254


Scots Gap
508
1
351

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state the views of the Government on the marketing proposals recently submitted to him by the National Farmers' Union and the National Poultry Council?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement of the Government's policy regarding the poultry industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the hon. Members will be aware, the proposals of the Poultry Technical Committee, which have now been published, provide for the setting up of a Stock Improvement Commission with functions of control in regard, among other things, to the distribution of breeding stock, hatching eggs, and day-old chicks and to a grading scheme for breeding farms. The marketing proposals to which the hon. Member


refers, provide, for their part, for the setting up of a producers' marketing board to regulate certain distributive functions, with special reference to the standardisation of grading and packing of commercial egg supplies. In inviting the bodies representative of the industry to acquaint me with their views on the report of the Technical Committee, I am asking them to reconsider their marketing proposals, in order to see whether the results which they and the Committee desire could not be achieved with economy and efficiency through a single organisation. I am also inviting the bodies representing distributors to consider this question from their point of view.

Mr. Mathers: Before coming to a final decision, is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in mind the statement that he made to me some time ago, that the position of the mixed farmer with other interests is a much better one than that of the small, exclusively poultry farmer?

Mr. Morrison: I am trying to keep in mind all relevant considerations.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure, before he finally approves any marketing scheme, that it

Year.
Arable, (a)
Permanent Pasture, excluding rough grazings.(a)
Total cultivated area (a)
Workers, (b)


1913
…
…
11,058,233
16,071,149
27,129,382
651,000(c)


1920
…
…
12,019,745
14,487,266
26,507,011
869,183(d)


1933
…
…
9,249,886
15,869,762
25,119,648
715,546


1937
…
…
9,023,800
15,756,521
24,780,321
631,657


(a) On agricultural holdings of over one acre.


(b) Excluding the occupier of the holding, his wife and do nestic servants.


(c) Excluding all members of the occipier's family and dotnestic servants.


(d) For 1921; no information is a are not available for 1920 Estimates of the total value of the agricultural output are not available for the years named. The nearst avilable are:

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TERRITORIES (BOMBING AEROPLANES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, as an example to other nations, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will prohibit the use of bombing aeroplanes for police

is a marketing scheme and not a price-fixing scheme?

Mr. Morrison: As I have said, it is obvious that the publication of this important report modifies the situation with regard to a marketing scheme, and I think I have taken the right course in asking those who are submitting the scheme to me to reconsider the matter afresh in view of the importance of the subject.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres under cultivation, the total value of agricultural produce, and the number of workers employed in England and Wales, for the years 1913, 1920, 1933 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply involves tables of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number of acres under cultivation, and the number of agricultural workers employed, in England and Wales in the years mentioned were:

purposes in any territory under British control?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are not prepared to limit the activities of their Air Forces except as part of an international agreement. If such an agreement were found to be


possible—and, as the House has already been informed, His Majesty's Government are most anxious that it should be possible—the Government would be fully prepared to give the assurance suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how an international agreement would affect the bombing or the non-bombing of peoples in the North-West part of India?

The Prime Minister: I should have to see the international agreement before I could answer that question.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in fact it would be quite possible for this country voluntarily to abstain from bombing the natives in that part of India, quite apart from an international agreement?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a necessary military action for the preservation of British lives?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

RELAY STATIONS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what steps the British Broadcasting Corporation are taking to construct a Birmingham relay station;
(2) whether the Government will consider making the necessary financial provision for 12 relay stations in connection with television to the major cities throughout this country?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 7th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Rostron Duckworth).

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give us no further information now on this all-important subject?

Major Tryon: The information was given on 7th February.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Postmaster-General by what date he expects to be in a position to state whether the experiment in the working of a system of wireless relay in Southampton is a success or failure?

Major Tryon: The arrangements are being pressed forward with all practicable speed, but I cannot at this stage forecast a date by which it will be possible to judge what measure of success has attended the experiment.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is considering a national wireless relay station on the same basis of cost as Southampton; and what is the estimated cost involved?

Major Tryon: The Southampton experiment, which will include local distribution of broadcast programmes both over special wires and over the telephone wires, does not in any way commit the Government to accepting the recommendation of the Ullswater Committee with reference to relay services. Its object is to obtain more information before coming to a decision.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Postmaster-General what contribution per annum will be made to the Southampton Corporation for rates, wayleaves, and other charges in respect of the wiring and other installations necessary for the proposed wireless relay system?

Major Tryon: Rates and wayleave charges are not payable on wires placed by the Post Office in public highways; and no reason has been put forward, in connection with the proposed relay experiment, which would appear to warrant a change of practice in this matter.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will accept full responsibility for the contents of the foreign radio programmes supplied to subscribers through the medium of the proposed Post Office wireless relay service at Southampton; and what steps will he take to exclude foreign propaganda from such programmes?

Major Tryon: In accordance with the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting, 1935, it is the intention that the British Broadcasting Corporation shall be responsible for the choice of programmes to be relayed to the subscribers to the Post Office wire-broadcasting service at Southampton. I have no doubt that the British Broadcasting Corporation will take what steps are necessary to exclude from the service any foreign programmes containing propaganda.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: How soon does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect the wireless service at Southampton to be ready and available to the public?

Major Tryon: I cannot give an exact date. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Supplementary Estimate has not yet been taken.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General what estimates he has prepared as to the number of initial subscribers to the proposed wireless relay system in Southampton; and what annual increase is anticipated?

Major Tryon: Without canvassing on the spot, it is not possible to prepare firm estimates of the initial number of subscribers to the proposed service. One of the results of the experiment should be to furnish definite information on the extent of the public demand for the system.

Mr. Williams: Do I understand that there is a proposal to spend £210,000 on a scheme without the faintest idea of how many people want it?

Major Tryon: It is not a question of this scheme alone, but of settling a difficult problem which the House debated in the summer. It is well worth while to find what is the best method before considering whether to embark on any general plan.

Mr. Mabane: What is the proposed weekly charge to subscribers?

Major Tryon: One shilling and sixpence.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: How did Southampton come to be selected for this experiment?

Major Tryon: Because the Southampton Corporation invited us to make the experiment in Southampton, and I am much obliged to them.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not because the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects that seat at the next election?

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (STAFF).

Mr. Parker: asked the Postmaster-General why members of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation are still discouraged from joining trade unions despite the adoption by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee that

there should be no restriction upon their freedom to do so?

Major Tryon: I am assured by the British Broadcasting Corporation that there is no foundation for the suggestion that members of its staff are discouraged from joining trade unions. If the hon. Member will send me details of any case on which his statement to the contrary is based, I will bring them to the notice of the Governors, upon whom rests the responsibility in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

NICARAGUA SERVICE.

Mr. Muff: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the letters from this country to Nicaragua, on the Atlantic coast, now go via Panama Canal to Corinto, on the Pacific coast, and take 50 days to deliver and sometimes are lost in the forest country; and whether he will revert to the old practice of sending letters via New Orleans which can be delivered in 17 days?

Major Tryon: I am obliged to the hon. Member for bringing this matter under notice. Letters for all places on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua should be sent, as the hon. Member suggests, via New Orleans to Bluefields on the Atlantic coast, but through a misunderstanding some have been missent to Corinto, which is the port of entry of mails for the Pacific coast. I much regret the inconvenience occasioned; and I am having the matter put right at once.

TELEGRAM ADDRESSES.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that American telegraph companies make no additional charge for the address on a telegram, with a result that much time and labour is saved owing to the absence of incorrectly addressed telegrams, he will consider adopting the same system in the country in order to further popularise the Post Office telegraph service?

Major Tryon: The question of allowing the address of a telegram to be transmitted free of charge has been considered on several occasions in the past, but my predecessors have always reached the conclusion, with which I agree, that the concession would not lead to increase of business sufficient to make good the loss of


revenue per telegram. I am glad to say that very few telegrams are incorrectly addressed.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the loss of revenue would be if this was adopted?

Major Tryon: Not without knowing what the concession was.

Mr. Day: I mean the concession asked for in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING BOARD.

Sir A. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Herring Board has made a report to him and to the Minister of Agriculture on whether it is practicable to make provision for the election by persons engaged in the industry of certain members of the Board; and when this report will be published?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The report will be published shortly.

HOUSING.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the serious shortage of housing for working people in Greenock and elsewhere in Scotland, he will introduce legislation to provide financial assistance to local authorities for the erection of such housing, apart from houses required for slum clearance and the relief of overcrowding?

Mr. Wedderburn: In view of the present pressure on the building industry in Scotland both in respect of labour and materials, it is essential that local authorities should concentrate on building for the replacement of unfit houses and for putting an end to overcrowding. The removal of families from overcrowded houses will, however, release fit houses which will be available for general housing needs.

VOTERS' AND JURY LISTS.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Parliamentary voters, men and women, there are in each of the Lothian counties and Peebles, respectively; and how many

persons, men and women, there are on the jury lists for jury service in the Court of Session in each of these counties for a comparable date?

Mr. Wedderburn: As the answer includes tables of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the relative proportions?

Mr. Wedderburn: They are all in the figures.

Mr. Gibson: Does the Minister realise that the jury lists are unreliable and out of date because many persons are cited for jury service who have been for many years dead or, worse still, have been resident in London?

Mr. Wedderburn: The jury lists are compiled by sheriffs from those who are qualified to serve. If the hon. Member wishes to know how, he had better put a question down.

Following is the answer:

The number of Parliamentary voters on the current Register in constituencies or parts of constituencies lying within the three Lothian counties and Peebles is as follows:


—
Men.
Women.


Parliamentary Borough of Edinburgh (5 Divisions).
103,542
134,693


Parliamentary Borough of Leith.
23,218
26,021


Northern Division of Parliamentary County of Midlothian and Peebles.
26,929
31,153


Peebles and Southern Division of Parliamentary County of Midlothian and Peebles.
16,948
18,068


Parliamentary County of Linlithgow.
25,208
23,381


County of East Lothian (part of Parliamentary County of Berwick and Haddington).
14,168
15,460

Jurors cited for the Court of Session are drawn from the General Jury Books for the City of Edinburgh and the counties of Midlothian, East Lothian and Westlothian and the numbers of men and women whose names appeared in these Books in October, 1937, are as follow:




—
Men.
Women.


City of Edinburgh
4,867
4,334


Midlothian
475
527


East Lothian
782
899


West Lothian
1,659
1,264

No persons are summoned from the county of Peebles for jury service in the Court of Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether it is proposed to issue instructions without delay to the Government of Trinidad to give immediate effect to the recommendations made in regard to land settlement contained in the report of the Trinidad Inquiry Commission;
(2) what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the suggestion made in the Trinidad inquiry report that the projected labour department should be empowered to withhold registration of trade unions in certain circumstances; and whether he is aware that this proposal is calculated to hamper the freedom of workers to combine for the protection of their labour?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I shall await the views of the Government of Trinidad before coming to any final decision as to these recommendations. In this connection I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 3rd February.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the serious character of the situation in Trinidad, cannot steps be taken immediately to give the minimum wage and to give land settlement, and at the same time to allow the same rights, limited as they are, that there are in this country to the people in Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Commissioners, including Sir Arthur Pugh, give special reasons why it would take time for trade unions to develop in Trinidad and why the Secretary for Labour should have special control. As regards other matters like land settlement, there has just been a general election in Trinidad, and obviously the legislature must be consulted before other legislation is enacted.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that limitations are placed on trade unions because they want to develop along lines which are not suitable to the Government of Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read paragraph 295 of the Commission's report.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some weight to the other parts of the report which urge immediate action to redress the shameful labour conditions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already said that I have accepted the recommendations of the report and have asked the Government of Trinidad to submit their views for a programme of legislation and action. I cannot do more.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to the immediate fixing of a minimum wage for labour in Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The present position in Trinidad in respect of wage fixing machinery is described in paragraph 165 of the Commission's report. As already explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 3rd January, I have requested the views of the Government of Trinidad.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as urgent in view of the large profits that are being made under Imperial Preference by the trading companies in Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know on what the right hon. Gentleman bases his information. The only Imperial Preference is on sugar, and I have yet to see large profits being made out of sugar in Trinidad.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the absolute inaction in the matter of the minimum wage was the main cause of the recent trouble, and will he, therefore, regard the matter as urgent?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not what the Commission find. There is on the Statute Book in Trinidad provision for fixing the minimum wage, and the Commission suggests that the Government of Trinidad should put it into force.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware—[HON. MEMBERS:" Order."] On a point of Order. I always understood that when a Member asked a question he was entitled to ask at least one supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has already asked supplementary questions on No. 63.

Major Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information from the acting-Governor of Trinidad as to the reception of the commission's report in the Colony?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am glad to be able to state that on 8th February I was informed by the Acting-Governor that the commission's report had been received very quietly in Trinidad, that its comments and proposals had had a generally favourable reception with the Press and public, and that the recommendations as to labour were welcomed. The fact that no definite increase in wages was proposed had caused some disappointment, but less than was expected, and there had been no adverse effects in any industry.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of that reply, is it now proposed that the extra regiments stationed in Trinidad should continue there?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should be obliged if that question were put down on Wednesday week.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the nature of the representations which General Nuri Pasha recently submitted to him on the subject of the relations of Jews and Arabs in Palestine; and whom General Nuri Pasha claims to represent?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: During Nuri Pasha's recent visit to London I received him as an old personal acquaintance. Our conversation was entirely informal. Nuri Pasha did not speak in any representative capacity, and there was no question of submitting any formal representations or proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he

is aware that the Indian community in British Guiana are anxious that an Indian agent-general should be appointed in that colony primarily to assist them in their social and industrial difficulties; and whether he will accede to this request?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir, I have received no representations on this subject from the Indian community in British Guiana. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (PRESS CENSORSHIP).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the State Council of Ceylon, that the "Times of Ceylon" should be penalised for criticising the Deputy-Speaker of the Council for his conduct in the chair by being deprived of all official statements and advertisements and by having its representatives excluded from the chamber; whether the terms of that resolution are being carried out; and whether he has any statement to make on the position?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The position is briefly as follows. On 24th January the "Times of Ceylon" published a leading article entitled "Deputy-Speaker's Apologia" which the State Council by resolution on 8th February declared libellous and decided to withdraw the general permission given to representatives of that newspaper under Standing Order 34 to attend its sittings until an apology is tendered. On 9th February two police inspectors acting on the order of the Speaker refused representatives admission to the Press Gallery, whereupon the newspaper's chief reporting officer filed a plaint of wrongful restraint under Section 330 of the Penal Code against both inspectors and against the Speaker as abetting. The police magistrate issued a summons on this plaint and the case will be taken on 16th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (COCOA, COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the decision of cocoa producers in the Gold Coast to burn, approximately, one-quarter of the cocoa crop in the course of the next two


months; whether he proposes to take any steps to find a solution of the difficulties now existing between producers and purchasers of cocoa which will prevent this wastage; and whether he can make a statement on the position?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he now has further information respecting the difficulty of deliveries of cocoa from farmers in West Africa; whether a boycott is operating; and what action is being taken respecting unrest arising in connection with the cocoa pool agreement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am now able to make the further statement on this subject promised in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen) on 9th February. At the instance of the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria, I have decided to appoint a Commission of Inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To examine and report on the marketing of cocoa in the Gold Coast and Nigeria, with special reference to the situation which has arisen as a result of the buying agreement entered into between certain firms; and to submit recommendations.
The personnel of the Commission will consist of three members in no way connected with West Africa. They will leave this country for West Africa at the earliest possible date.
I have this morning received a report from the Governor of the Gold Coast to the effect that, while it is impossible to state yet whether farmers will now commence to sell their cocoa, the announcement of the appointment of the Commission, which was made in West Africa last Friday, has been received with satisfaction. I have seen reports of proposals for burning part of the crop, but I am not aware of the extent to which they represent the intention of persons who actually own the cocoa to burn it. The Governor has issued a message strongly deprecating any action of this kind.

Mr. Sorensen: When is it likely that the Commission will publish its report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Commission has not yet been appointed, and obviously it is for the Commission to get out to West Africa, to hear the grievances of those who say that they have grievances, and report in due course.

Mr. Sorensen: But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the matter is very serious, and does he not think that if some time limit were imposed it would assist matters considerably?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: To appoint an independent Commission to go out to inquire into such a matter and then to impose a time limit would be quite impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTION.

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the decisions of the Government on the recommendations of the Committee on the Rent Restrictions Acts?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend hopes to be able in a few days to issue a White Paper containing a statement of the Government's policy and intentions in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Minister of Health whether his medical advisers can provide him with an approximate estimate of the cost of sickness falling upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer because of the absence of any guaranteed provision of dental benefit to persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts; and what would be the approximate cost to the Treasury of providing dental benefits to members of such approved societies as are unable because of their sickness experience to supply these dental benefits?

Mr. Bernays: I am afraid that it is impossible to give any reliable estimate of the cost of sickness attributable to the cause referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. At present approved societies covering about 75 per cent. of the insured population are able to pay some proportion of the cost of dental treatment of their members, but it would not be safe to estimate on a proportionate basis the cost of providing the benefit for members of the remaining 25 per cent. as it would depend on many factors, such as the number of members of those societies requiring treatment on which sufficient information is not available. It would,


in any case, be impossible to justify an arrangement under which, while the majority of societies paid from their own savings, the remainder had the benefit provided for them from public funds.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the national fitness campaign, he can take any steps to provide that all insured persons, paying the same rates of national heath contribution through one or other of the approved societies, shall have equal rights to dental benefits, irrespective of the average sickness experience of the group of insured persons with whom individual insured persons have been segregated?

Mr. Bernays: If the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that the cost of providing dental benefit on a uniform basis to all insured persons should be made a charge on the funds of such societies as have disposable surpluses, I am afraid that such a proposal would be entirely unacceptable to all but a small minority of societies. If, on the other hand, he has in mind a new statutory benefit necessarily requiring new moneys, I must remind him that such a proposal could only be considered in relation to demands for other major extensions of the National Health Insurance Scheme when the time is opportune.

Mr. Johnston: Are we to understand that the Government propose to continue

ENGLAND AND WALES.


Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local Education Authorities.


Areas under County Councils.


Number of Departments, by type of department, with number of pupils, in Urban and Rural parts of Counties, 31st March, 1937.


—
Reorganised departments.
Unreorganised departments.
Grand Total.


Senior.
Junior.
Infants.
All-Age with Senior Divisions.
Total.
All-Age without Senior Divisions.


Urban:









Number of Departments
686
1,467
1,564
327
4,044
1,891
5,935


Pupils under 11
2,297
294,728
228,969
38,791
564,785
186,381
751,166


Pupils 11 and over
190,754
28,936
12
35,428
255,130
144,703
399,833


Rural:









Number of Departments
209
2,112
763
555
3,639
7,26
10,965


Pupils under 11
1,740
128,605
69,820
37,363
237,28
356,900
594,2


Pupils 11 and over
42,988
11,030
10
30,489
84,17
214,236
298,53


Since 31st March, 1937, 26 new senior departments have been opened in urban parts and 19 in rural parts of counties, and proposals for 138 such departments, of which 109 are in urban and 29 in rural parts have been approved.

a system of differentiation under which all insured persons pay the same contributions but only a proportion, say 75 per cent., of them get dental benefits and the remaining 25 per cent. do not?

Mr. Bernays: The Government cannot control the expenditure of the approved societies.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not realised that if the hon. Member and his chief would be good enough to restore to the approved societies the reduction in State grants which was made five years ago, all which is asked for could be done with ease?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL SCHOOLS.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what proportion of central schools outside large towns are being built in wholly rural and what proportion in urban surroundings?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I regret that the information is not available in the form asked for in the question, but I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the position in regard to public elementary school reorganisation in the urban and the rural parts of counties respectively.

Following is the table:

Mrs. Tate: Will the hon. Member impress upon county education authorities in agricultural counties the very great advantages of placing their central schools in wholly rural districts?

Mr. Lindsay: That is what I am doing almost every week and is the Board's policy.

Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Member aware that in the county of Somerset, which is almost wholly agricultural, nearly half of the central schools are not in rural surroundings, and will he ask the Education Committee to reconsider their schemes?

Mr. De la Bère: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the Vale of Evesham?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT FACTORY, HATFIELD (DISPUTE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dispute at the De Havilland aircraft factory, Hatfield; what steps have been taken to terminate the dispute; and will he take action to bring about a settlement?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): I am informed that work is to be resumed at this factory on Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRANSPORT (EMPLOYES' WAGES).

Mr. Broad: asked the Minister of Labour whether he anticipates being in a position to introduce at an early date legislation to implement the recommendations of the committee on the regulation of wages and conditions in the road motor-transport industry?

Mr. Butler: It is not yet possible to add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) on 1st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Arthur Pearson, esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Pontypridd Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 113.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cary, R. A.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, w.)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. City of Chester)
Duggan, H. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dunglass, Lord


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Eastwood, J. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edab'l'n)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Assheton, R.
Channon, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elmley, Viscount


Aster, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Everard, W. L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fleming, E. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fyte, D. P. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Blair, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Blaker, Sir R.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Grant-Ferris, R.


Boulton, W. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cross, R. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crossley, A. C.
Guinness; T. L. E. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Culverwell, C. T.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hambro, A. V.


Bull, B. R.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hannah, I. C.


Bullock, Capt. M
Dawson, Sir P.
Hartington, Marquess of


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
De Chair. S. S.
Harvey, Sir G.


Burton, Col. H W.
De la Bare, R.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Butler, R. A.
Denville, Alfred
Haslam, Henry (Harncastle)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Despeneer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Cortland, J. R. H.
Doland, G. F.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.




Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hepburn, p. G. T. Bushan.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Hepworth, J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Holmes, J. S.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hopkinson, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, A. C.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hulbert, N. J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hunter, T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Keeling, E. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Patrick, C. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Peake, O.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Kimball, L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tutnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Pilkington, R.
Turton, R. H.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pownail, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wakefield, W. W.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Radford, E. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Levy, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lindsay, K. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lipson, D. L.
Rankin, Sir R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Loftus, P. C.
Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wedderburn. H. J. S.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


MacDonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McKie, J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wise, A. R.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Magnay, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Makins, Brig-Gen. E.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sandys, E. D.



Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Savery, Sir Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marsden, Commander A.
Selley, H. R.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hall G. H. (Abordare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Batey, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton. T. M.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston. Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cooks, F. S.
Kirby. B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambetn, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. P
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Inee)
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. ([...])
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.


Groves. T. E.
Pearson, A.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 10th February.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Lease consolidation schemes.)

3.59 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 73, line 27, to leave out from "scheme," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
shall not be made so as to determine an underlease in a case in which interests arising under a superior lease are to be retained by virtue of a direction under Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act.

This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment which was made to Clause 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 75, line 29, at the end, to insert:
(2) The powers conferred by the provisions inserted as aforesaid shall be exercisable during the period aforesaid as regards the matters to which those provisions relate, as statutory powers, to the exclusion of any other power that might otherwise have been exercisable as regards those matters.
This is a small but necessary technical Amendment to be made to the provisions relating to leasehold consolidation schemes, when a single lease is made for a number of properties belonging to a number of landlords in a colliery area. The Committee will see in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, provisions relating to persons acting on behalf of the landlords. We are advised that words of this kind are necessary to get over what would be the very great technical complications of having conveyances operating with regard to a single individual case.

4.0 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I am not quite clear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation exactly what is intended to be the scope of this Amendment. He is putting in this sub-paragraph to paragraph 10 of the Schedule, and whether or not "the provisions inserted as aforesaid" refer only to words in paragraph 10 or whether they refer to everything that is "aforesaid" in the course

of this Bill, I do not know. Usually when there is in a Clause with a sub-clause words like "provisions inserted as aforesaid" they refer back only to the particular clause with which you are dealing, but the hon. and gallant Member said that this was intended to get over the provision of paragraph 4 (c) with regard to certain persons being able to act, as it were, instead of the lessee in certain events. If that is so, I should have thought that these words were not the happy way to carry out the intention. I understand that this Amendment will effect substantially the setting aside of all the ordinary law with regard to the operation of these conveyances, the rights of tenants for life, or anything else. They will be all set aside in favour of this special term. A rather more accurate definition is required here. When courts are dealing with these matters they have to deal with them very strictly. I should have thought that rather clearer and more definite words were required to show just what it is that is proposed to be the new code which is to supersede the old code. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into the matter before the next stage.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. These words are meant to refer to the person mentioned in the Clause. I shall certainly see that the matter is made clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Grant of leases to freeholders in possession of coal immediately before the vesting date).

4.3 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 76, line 40, to leave out "term," and to insert "terms."

This Amendment is moved merely in order to correct a misprint.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 and 21 Geo. 5, c. 34, s. 13.)

Amendment made: In page 77, line 28, leave out "Mines."—[Captain Crookshank.]

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 77, line 36, to leave out "and not otherwise," and to insert:
or by the payment of a sum of money in cash or partly in securities and partly in cash.

This Amendment is intended to restore the power which was inherent in the Railway and Canal Commission under the Acts of 1926 and 1930. By Section 7, Sub-section (2) of the 1926 Act the Commission was given power, where it thought it not fair to do otherwise, to order that an undertaking which was being compulsorily amalgamated should be paid for in cash. We think it very desirable that it should be made clear that this power will exist in the future as it has been done in the past. Under the proposed terms of the Schedule each of the constituent companies has to be given shares or securities of the new company, "and not otherwise." One can well conceive a case where it is highly desirable that the power to order a cash expropriation should exist in the court, and power should exist to include such provision in the scheme laid down before them.

To take the most obvious example, one can conceive that the amalgamation might be desirable of a number of collieries one of which for some time past had been closed down. That colliery might possess leases of areas of coal which it was desirable should be worked by the collieries which were still in operation. In a case of that sort the owners of the closed down colliery would obviously not wish to take any part in the management of the combined undertaking, and the Railway and Canal Commission might easily come to the conclusion that they could not approve as fair and equitable a scheme which did not provide for the expropriation of that undertaking for a cash consideration. The Railway and Canal Commission would thereby be put in the position of having to reject the scheme. They would say, "This scheme is not fair and equitable unless a particular party is expropriated in cash." There might be parties to the proposed amalgamation willing to pay cash to obtain control in the amalgamation of that undertaking, and yet here by the words of the Schedule the drafters of the scheme, that is to say the Coal Commission, are expressly prohibited from including in

their scheme a provision for cash expropriation. The Amendment will in fact make the task of the Coal Commission easier and not more difficult, and it seems to me to be a desirable Amendment.

4.9 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I have on the Paper an Amendment designed to deal with a similar point. I would support what has been said by the Mover of this Amendment, because it is not difficult to see that if you are going to have compulsory amalgamation the question of buying out may become a very serious one. The point of fairness is one on which the scheme is bound very much to depend if it is to be a success. One can well imagine, as in Wales, a case like that of the amalgamated anthracite collieries. It is quite possible to have a small company working now and making a profit. It may be just an ordinary 5 per cent. profit, but at any rate the company is paying a dividend and its shares may stand at £1. If it is to be amalgamated into a bigger concern, which seems quite reasonable from an amalgamation point of view, what will be handed over will be shares standing at to-day's quotation, say 4s. 9d., which do not pay and have no prospect of paying a dividend. If you say to that man, "I am going to give you five shares in the new company for every one in the old, and therefore you will be in the same position." He will not be in the same position. He would merely be in the position of being in the industry and not making any dividend at all and without the chance of making one. Merely giving a man shares in something which is not paying is not a proper and fair way to proceed.

4.11 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This proposal cuts across the plan which is inherent in the Seventh Schedule. What the Bill provides is that in the scheme put up by the Coal Commission consideration shall be given to each of the constituent companies in securities of the new company, "and not otherwise." The Amendment would alter that and allow consideration to be given partly in cash or partly in shares. One of the difficulties which are very obvious is that it would clearly be wrong that any transferor company should be forced out of the industry as a result of amalgamation proposals. This might very well occur if there were a provision that the


company should be paid out in cash. It might, for example, be a company that did not want to be amalgamated at all, but if there was to be an amalgamation they would prefer to continue rather than to be bought out altogether. On the other hand if a provision of this kind were put in, it might be that a company would prefer to be bought out, and if it had a right to demand certain cash considerations that might cripple the whole of the new scheme.

Mr. Peake: My Amendment, of course, does not give the proposed amalgamatee the right to demand cash. In that respect it differs from the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely).

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged for that statement. I am, of course, considering the two Amendments on the Paper. The general idea is the same in each. If there was an inherent right to have cash paid out, the difficulties might be such that it would be impossible to proceed with the scheme at all; it might wreck the resources which were necessary in order that the scheme might be carried out. The hon. Baronet quoted some case which he has in mind and in which, unless cash were paid, it would not be fair to the transferee company. If that is so, of course, the safeguard must be found to lie in what the court can do when a scheme is put up to it. The Court can either confirm it or throw it out. They can only accept it on the terms laid down in paragraph 2 of the Schedule, that is to say, provided they are satisfied that it is calculated to avoid financial injury to any of the constituent companies and to enable the undertaking of the transferee company to be efficiently carried on. In the case of any particular scheme going before the Railway and Canal Commission, if they come to the conclusion on the facts that, unless cash was paid in a particular case, it would be unfair in the manner that the hon. Baronet suggests, clearly they must reject the scheme. Therefore, the matter lies with the court. The Court has to be satisfied that the scheme is fair and equitable and is calculated to enable the undertaking to be efficiently carried on. That is the final and, as it seems to me, by far the best safeguard, rather than putting in at this stage some words with regard to the possibility of paying cash.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Wise: Would it not assist amalgamation if the Coal Commission had this power? At the moment they are in the unfortunate situation that, if they produce a scheme which the Railway and Canal Commission decides is inequitable unless cash is paid to one or more companies, they have no power to proceed any further with the scheme, because they have no right to pay cash. That seems to me to be a serious difficulty which would hamper the purpose of the Bill. I cannot see that it would be particularly difficult or crippling that they should have to find the cash, because one would assume that the Railway and Canal Commission, being an impartial body, would only insist on the payment of cash in a certain very small number of instances, and it would be perfectly possible by the ordinary means of finance for the new amalgamated concern to raise the money with which to pay any of its constituent members. It seems to me that the rejection of this Amendment may seriously cripple the Commission in the exercise of their powers.

4.19 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: Is there any other way in which this matter could be dealt with? Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent a larger company that is taking over a smaller company from entering into a subsidiary agreement that, after the shares were allotted, they would purchase the shares in question at a specified price? Would that be permissible under the Bill, or is there anything to prevent the making of an agreement of that kind? If such an agreement could be made, it seems to me that it could be taken into consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission in deciding whether the transaction was equitable or not.

Captain Crookshank: What happens after the amalgamation has taken place would be another matter. I do not think there would be anything to prevent such an arrangement, but I should like to look into the point.

Sir I. Albery: It would not take place after the amalgamation, but, supposing that the smaller company was resisting the transaction on the ground that it was an unfair transaction, if they had an


undertaking to purchase at a specified price the shares allotted to them, presumably it would no longer be unfair.

Amendment negatived.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 78, line 7, to leave out "make provision for the determination of," and to insert "specify."
I have also an Amendment in line 13, after "may," to insert
modify the amount or the form of the payments specified in the scheme and may,
which is consequential upon the present Amendment.
Paragraph 2 of the Seventh Schedule lays down the matters which have to be considered when an amalgamation scheme comes before the Railway and Canal Commission. The Railway and Canal Commission have to be satisfied, inter alia, that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected by it, and the question with which they are here concerned is whether the shares in the new company are distributed in fair proportions between the constituent concerns. Paragraph (1, b) of the Schedule reads:
The scheme shall determine the classes of securities of the transferee company which are to be given to the transferor companies in respect of the different classes of property transferred to it, and shall make provision for the determination of the amount of the consideration to be given to each of the transferor companies out of those securities, in so far as it is not determined by the terms of the scheme, being finally determined upon principles specified therein, by arbitration or otherwise, after the scheme has come into operation.
We think it is going to be extremely difficult for parties to argue before the Railway and Canal Commission as to whether their shares in the proposed new concern are fair and equitable, if they do not know what those shares are going to be—if, that is to say, the scheme provides for the final settlement of the shares being carried out, as is proposed in this paragraph, by arbitration after the scheme has come into operation. The whole procedure before the Railway and Canal Commission is directed to examining the question whether the shares of the constituent concerns are fair and equitable, and, if a provision is included whereby the final shares may not be determined at all at the time when the matter comes

before the Court, it is going to be extremely difficult for counsel or anyone else to argue that the shares are fair and reasonable.
We see no practical difficulty in the scheme actually specifying the amount of the consideration to be given to each of the transferor companies; we cannot see why that should not be specified in the scheme at the time when it comes before the Court. Of course, when you enter into an amalgamation, there are certain outstanding items which it is very difficult to assess precisely at an earlier date; matters like the amount of stock, the amounts owing to or by creditors or debtors, and things of that kind, are very difficult to assess precisely; but it could easily be provided in the scheme that each constituent concern should bring in, either by way of surplus of debtors over creditors, or liquid cash, stocks of coal and so on, a given total round sum, and that round sum could be made up of any of the various items I have described. From a purely accountancy point of view I am assured that there is no practical difficulty in the scheme actually specifying the amount of property to be brought into the combined undertaking and the amount of the actual consideration to be given in shares or otherwise. It is for these reasons that I desire to leave out the reference of the question to arbitration after the scheme has been confirmed by the Court.

4.25 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This point is one which was made a good deal of in the propaganda of the Mining Association, and it has been treated by them, though it certainly has not been so treated by my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment, and could not be so treated by anyone who has studied the purpose of the Bill, on the basis that under this Measure it would be possible for a man to be deprived of his property before he had any notice of what he was to get for it. My hon. Friend has dealt perfectly clearly with what, after all, is nothing more or less than a bit of machinery. Under paragraph (1, b) the scheme has either to give the actual details of the consideration which the transferor company is to receive, or to lay down the principles upon which that consideration is to be finally determined; and, therefore, of course, there must be a fair degree of


certainty in the scheme as it comes before the Railway and Canal Commission. The safeguard of the transferor company against being deprived of its property without knowing what it is to get for it is the Railway and Canal Commission, who have to be satisfied that the scheme is fair and equitable to that particular company and is calculated to avoid financial injury to it. In order to perform that duty, the Railway and Canal Commission must have before them sufficient data for the purpose, and, if the scheme is so wide that they are unable to form an opinion as to whether the transferor company is being fairly treated, it is their obvious duty to reject the scheme.
The scheme laid before the Railway and Canal Commission must in the nature of the case be a scheme for amalgamation at a future date, and, therefore, there must be certain details which, at the time of its submission to the Railway and Canal Commission, cannot be accurately known. My hon. Friend has referred to the question of the amount of stock. The stock will vary from day to day, and the amount which will actually be taken over at the time of the amalgamation may differ materially from the amount which was there at the time when the scheme was submitted. Therefore there must, as a matter of ordinary common sense, be some provision for dealing with variations of that kind.
My hon. Friend made the alternative suggestion that in the scheme should be included a statement of the amount of stock that would be taken over, or the amount of cash provided; but, as far as I can see, there would be no sanction for that; it could not be enforced. If the scheme stated that so much stock was to be available, or that so much cash was to be provided, and if that amount of stock was not handed over, or the cash was less than was laid down, I do not see by what means the Coal Commission could enforce the original scheme. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention whatsoever of trying to get a scheme through in an inchoate form, and thereby prejudicing the rights of individual companies. Even if there were such an intention, the Railway and Canal Commission have ample power to defeat it. The common-sense argument, with which I am sure everyone will agree, is

that, when you are submitting a scheme for an amalgamation at a future date, you must have some sliding scale for determining, by fixed principles laid down in the scheme, elements which may vary between the date of the submission of the scheme and the date on which the amalgamation actually takes place.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: The scheme apparently lays down the property and liabilities to be transferred. It seems difficult to lay down, with any accuracy, the property and liabilities concerned, and to specify what property, such as stock, cash, and so forth, are to be transferred. But, if the scheme is able to lay down, in terms, the property and liabilities to be transferred, it seems to me that it should also lay down the precise shares which are to be allocated in return.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:
In page 78, line 43, leave out "Mines.
In page 79, line 12, leave out "Mines."—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 79, line 17, after "are," to insert "in their opinion."
The Committee will see that the terms and conditions that are fair and equitable are included in the sub-paragraph which refers to schemes submitted to the Board of Trade by the Coal Commission, and the only object of the Amendment is to make it clear that it is the opinion of the Railway and Canal Commission, and not the opinion of the Coal Commission.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I confess that I do not see what this Amendment, if carried, would add to the sub-paragraph. If the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that it already contains the words "as they consider necessary," and that surely means "as they consider necessary, in their opinion."

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the Amendment, because he does not understand the mentality of the people who moved it. They do not consider things in their own opinion, but in the opinion of the Mining Association.

Mr. Peake: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 79, line 19, after "calculated," to insert "(i)."
This and the next Amendment—in page 79, line 20, after "and," to insert "(ii)"—are simply to clarify the terms of this paragraph. The Committee will see, in the sub-paragraph, that the Commission shall confirm a scheme
if they are satisfied that it conforms to the enactments relating thereto and … the amalgamation or absorption affected by the scheme will be carried out upon such terms and conditions as aforesaid.
If one refers back to the preceding subparagraph, one sees that the words qualifying "terms and conditions" are:
fair and equitable to all persons affected by the scheme, and are calculated to avoid financial injury to any of the constituent companies and to enable the undertaking of the transferee company to be efficiently carried on.
The proposed interpolation of the figures "(i)" and "(ii)" would, in our opinion, make it clear that the words following the word "calculated" are part of the terms and conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (c), and it is simply in order to make it clear that there are three conditions to be fulfilled before the Commission can approve a scheme that these Amendments are moved.

Mr. Stanley: I have looked into this point, and I am satisfied that, without this Amendment, it is perfectly plain that each of these is a condition about which the Railway and Canal Commission have to be satisfied before approving a scheme.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 79, line 34, at the end, to insert:
and unless so satisfied they shall not confirm the scheme.

I move this Amendment in order to make it clear beyond doubt what the Minister of Mines said earlier this afternoon, that the Railway and Canal Commission have power to throw a scheme out altogether if they are not satisfied as to the terms and conditions laid down. The subparagraph imposes upon them a duty in

positive terms when it says that they shall approve a scheme if they are satisfied. The preceding sub-paragraph gives them power to modify a scheme, and, although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that these two sub-paragraphs impose a duty on the Commission to keep on modifying a scheme until they satisfy themselves that it is in accordance with the conditions, and that there is a strong bias in favour of them confirming a scheme if there is any doubt. I think the onus ought to be in the other direction, and the scheme should be thrown out unless the Commission are satisfied that these three conditions are fulfilled.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Here, again, I am advised that there can be no doubt as to the power of the Commission to reject a scheme if they are not satisfied that the three conditions are fulfilled. I should have thought, though I speak subject to correction from anyone more learned in the law, that the terms of paragraph 3 are sufficient to assure that. But if you take them in conjunction with Section 7 of the Act of 1926, which, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, stands unrepealed, and to which both this Schedule and the Act of 1930 are related, it becomes perfectly plain, I think, that the Commission have the power and duty to reject a scheme if they are not satisfied.

Mr. Peake: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 34, ss. 5 and 8.)

4.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I beg to move, in page 79, line 40, to leave out paragraph I, and to insert:
1. For Sub-section (2) of Section five there shall be substituted the following Subsection:
(2) The chairman and other members of every committee of investigation shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade and the Board shall appoint as chairman a member of the legal profession and as other members persons who appear to the Board to be substantially independent of the coal industry or of any other industry in which large quantities of coal are used and who are not members or officers or servants of an organisation of employers or workpeople in the coal-mining industry,


practising mining engineers, or in any other manner directly connected with that industry.

This Amendment is, of course, an Amendment of the principal Act, the Coal Mines Act, 1930. In view of the fact that this is in the nature of legislation by reference, and not too easy to follow, I might read one or two paragraphs of the principal Act dealing with the constitution and setting up of the national committee of investigation. The Act says:
There shall be constituted a national committee of investigation consisting of nine members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme, and there shall also be constituted for every district a district committee of investigation consisting of five members.…

Sub-section (2), which we are specifically seeking to amend, reads:
The chairman and other members of every committee of investigation shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade, and, of the members of the committee other than the chairman, one half shall be persons appointed to represent the interests of consumers of coal.…

The Schedule does, to some extent, amend this Section by inserting the words:
the person to be appointed as chairman shall be a member of the legal profession.

We are carrying that a little further, and hope to constitute an entirely impartial Committee of Investigation by ensuring that none of the people appointed to it shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the coal trade. We admit that we are, to some extent, laying ourselves open to the charge that we are providing for the nomination of people to the Commission who know nothing of the business, but we have Government sanction for that, because the Government are appointing a Central Appeal Tribunal with a membership appointed more or less on those lines. I should like to read what the Government have to say with regard to the appointment of that tribunal:
…the Board shall appoint as chairman a member of the legal profession and as the other members persons who appear to the Board to he substantially independent of the coal industry or of any other industry in which large quantities of coal are used, and who are not members, or officers or servants, of an organisation of employers or workpeople in the coal-mining industry, practising mining engineers, or in any other manner directly connected with that industry.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, if it is a good thing for

the Central Appeal Tribunal to be constituted on those lines, it is a good thing that this other body should be similarly constituted. It is an open secret that hitherto the Committee of Investigation has not succeeded in safeguarding the interests of the consumer to a really appreciable extent. What has happened? It is laid down that half the committee should consist of those who are supposed to safeguard the interests of the consumer, and it usually means that the other half of the committee represent mine-owners and the workers in the industry. They have formed one side, and those who have been attempting to look after the consumers have formed the other side. To all intents and purposes it has become such a dead letter that many consumers have not thought it worth while to take their case before the investigation committee. In view of that fact, and of the very serious increases in prices which have taken place since the principal Act of 1930 has been in operation, we feel that it is essential that a more efficient body should be appointed to look after the interests of the consumer.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist the Amendment, because if the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir L. Ward) desires to strengthen the committee's investigations, as I understand it is his desire to do, this is the worst way of doing it. He spoke of the need of a committee of investigation of an impartial character. It is quite clear that no committee can be completely impartial. The chairman himself and these independent persons are necessarily consumers of coal, and certainly, in coming to a decision, they could hardly be regarded as impartial in the coal consuming interest. The Act of 1930 recognised that there should be on a committee of investigation persons acquainted with the business concerned. The representative of the Mine-owners' Association, and the representative of the mineworkers act in the nature of assessors to advise on technical questions, with which the chairman as an independent person, cannot be familiar. For that reason this would be a most objectionable provision to insert in the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member called upon the Government to accept the


Amendment on the ground that a provision of this kind had been inserted in the Schedule in relation to the Appeal Tribunal. The case is not on all fours. The Appeal Tribunal are not called upon to examine the expert evidence that is submitted by the aggrieved consumer, but to weigh the evidence presented to them by the consumer, plus the evidence presented to them by the committee of investigation. They are, in fact, a court of appeal and are in quite a different position from the committee of investigation, and on those grounds, and more particularly because it is the desire to strengthen the committees of investigation and not to weaken them, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resist the Amendment.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I, also, appeal to the Secretary for Mines to refuse to accept the Amendment. We are anxious that the interests of the consumers should be adequately safeguarded, and do not want any advantage from the committees of investigation, but we feel that the machinery set up under the Act of 1930 is the right kind of machinery. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to suggest that the colliery interests represented vitiated this machinery. I would like him to understand clearly that the miner knows nothing about the fixing of prices. The owner may know something about them and be an interested party. The miner is there and knows as little as any representative of the consumers, and he is interested in the prices, as he ought to be, as his wages are determined by the prices. The Secretary for Mines should remember that we fear the possibility of prices being used in the interests of colliery owners who have investments in industries which use coal. We fear what may happen in the future. We have seen in the past that the colliery owner can lose on his colliery and regain his losses later on from moneys invested in some coal-using concern. Therefore, the miner is entitled to be there to safeguard his own interests.
There is to be an independent chairman who from now on, as, I think, has been the case in the past, is to be a member of the legal profession in the main. You have two consumers, one colliery owner and one miner. Can anyone suggest that such a committee cannot deal with the cases brought before the in-

vestigation committee? What are to be the cases? Sometimes prices, sometimes quality, supplies not arriving as they should, and the kind of service meted out. I suggest that these committees, constituted as they are, will be able to investigate these cases. We resent the suggestion that because there will be representatives from the mining industry upon these committees, it will prevent the consumer from getting a fair deal. Frankly, the miners of this country realise that it is far better that the consumer of coal should know that he is getting a fair deal, and that is why we have not opposed the setting up of adequate machinery for investigation. The machinery as constituted under the Act of 1930 is preferable from the point of view of the consumer to machinery constituted under the terms of this Amendment.

4.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that there is a difference between the composition of the Appeal Tribunal and the Regional Committees of Investigation, and that, because the Central Appeal Tribunal is proposed in the Bill to be entirely independent, there is no reason at all why there should necessarily be an alteration in the composition of committees of investigation. The hon. Baronet, I presume, moved the Amendment in the interests of the consumers of coal in order that the problem might be ventilated, but I say quite definitely, that the view he put forward is by no means the universally held view, even of representative bodies who purport to speak for organised consumers of coal. This matter has been under the consideration of the Government for a long time. The Committee will remember, as I said earlier on in these Debates, that in 1936, when the Government decided to try to secure that the chairmen of these committees should be legal gentlemen, it was also agreed at that time between the colliery interests and the representatives of certain of the consuming interests that the kind of Amendments that we were putting down in the Bill would meet both cases. We have had to go a little further since then because of the diverse views which were put in front of us, and we have come to the conclusion quite definitely that, bear-


ing in mind that the committees are committees of investigation to try to find out the facts, the most effective kind of body to do that is one on which there should be representatives both of coal interests and of the consuming interests. That is why we are definite that it should be in the form in which it is under the Act of 1930.
We feel that there is a definite advantage to be found in having round a table those who can speak for coal and those who can speak for coal consumption. If the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is carried, these representatives would also disappear from the committees of investigation. I feel that, on matters of carrying on an investigation, no doubt, in their private deliberations, the chairman feels that he can get very much help by having with him those who can speak with personal and intimate knowledge. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the committees cannot work in favour of the consumers. I would remind him and the Committee once again that a considerable number of cases have been taken for one reason or another before committees of investigation, and if the decisions of the committees were not such as were desirable—that is to say, from the consumers' point of view, such as the consumers were desirous of receiving—it might very well have nothing to do with the decision of the committee, but might very well be a bad case. That is always overlooked in these criticisms. We certainly do not propose to ask the Committee to alter the proposals in the Bill or to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and I hope, therefore, the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Levy: I rise only to ask a question. The hon. Gentleman has stated quite clearly that the investigation committee will have the right to investigate with regard to prices. Having arrived at the decision, by what statutory authority can they enforce it?

Amendment negatived.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 80, line 29, to leave out from the beginning, to "Any," in line 33.

This Amendment is designed to deal with the question as to who shall decide on the complaints that are made. In the

first sentence of the paragraph it gives the power to decide entirely to the chairman. It simply means that the chairman shall decide in every case. It has been our desire to meet the complaints of the consumers in the past, and we fail to see why this provision should be put in this Schedule. It has been said repeatedly during these Debates that prices determine wages. The miners think that to put the question of prices in the hands of one person is an unfair way of dealing with wages. I expect that the argument from the Front Bench opposite will be that, in all probability, there will always be two representatives on one side and two on the other in making decisions, and that, therefore, it will be a case of the casting vote of the chairman. We have no objection to a decision by the casting vote of the chairman or to a decision by a majority of those present, but we take objection to the question being left entirely in the hands of one person. There might be occasions when the four members would agree, but because the chairman disagreed, he might turn down the decision of the four members.

It is because of that probability that we have put down this Amendment, and we ask the Secretary for Mines or the President of the Board of Trade, when replying, to agree to that which the President said last week. He said, in discussing a similar issue, that it was a grave and important issue and one upon which he felt that there ought to be a majority decision. That is all that we ask. If the Secretary for Mines can give reasons why it should not be a majority decision and can satisfy us I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. We are not satisfied that it is necessary to invest such great power in one individual, having in mind the fact that he decides prices. Prices decide wages. Therefore, the fortunes of the miners are seriously involved. I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion in our Amendment. We are willing, if need be, if there has to be a majority decision, to accept the casting vote of the chairman.

5.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We have given this matter very careful consideration and we thought it wise that the chairman of this committee should be a completely independent person, of legal standing. As he will be the only independent person on


the committee it seemed to us that if there is strong or violent disagreement it will be better to put the final decision in his hands, seeing that he has no axe to grind and no direct interest one way or the other. That was why we thought that in the event of there being no agreement the chairman should be put in a quasi-judicial position. That is not an unknown thing to occur in various committees dealing with coal. In the selling schemes, or the majority of them, there is an independent chairman, and if the members do not agree, the chairman takes a decision on their behalf. The hon. Member will also recollect that on conciliation boards affecting owners and men, if the parties do not agree they decide to leave the matter to the independent chairman to take a decision. It was that consideration which led us to think that if there arose a case in which there was complete difference of opinion the chairman, who could not be considered as favouring one side or the other, should take a decision on behalf of the committee. That is why in the Bill we have left the decision to him in such circumstances.

5.2 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I think the Secretary for Mines is going rather further than he has indicated he wants to go by the form of the Schedule as it stands. Let me envisage the position that may arise. He has been talking about a difference of interests, about the consumers' representatives as against, say, the mineowners' and mineworkers' representatives. That would be two and two. That is obviously the major cleavage that there is likely to be. In that case, obviously, the chairman would have the casting vote. That is possible without his having to override the majority of the rest of the committee. But this envisages a case in which the chairman disagrees with all four of the other representatives, who are agreed. It would seem rather strange that if the consumers, the mineowners and the miners are agreed that we should give the independent chairman the right to overrule the lot. That is what is happening here. By his own failure to be unanimous, the chairman can always give himself the right to determine the question. That seems to be going too far for any committee. It really makes the chairman a complete dictator of the entire tribunal. He can at any moment say:

"I do not agree with you, and therefore what you say does not matter." Surely that is wrong. That is a bad atmosphere to have in any committee of investigation.
I appreciate the point that you may have a committee which consists of four representatives, one of whom may be absent, in which case you might have two and two, including the chairman, and some means of resolving that position has to be invented. Could not that be done by giving the chairman a casting vote in such a case, which would in fact mean that having voted in the normal way as chairman he would have the right to decide and determine the question by giving a second or casting vote, in order to bring the issue to a decision by a majority? I should have thought that that would have provided everything that was really necessary. The Minister may say that you might have the mineworker and the two consumers' representatives voting against the mineowner and the chairman. That is a possibility. In that case, if the consumers' representatives and the mine-worker are agreed against the mineowner and the chairman, is there any reason why their opinion should not prevail? There you would have two quite diverse interests who had been able to agree. Surely, that would be sufficient to give the majority the right to have their opinion put into operation. There might be a case in which the two consumers' representatives and the mineowner might be on one side and the miners' representative and the chairman on the other.

Mr. Stanley: You might not have identity of interests between the two consumers' representatives. You might have one consumers' representative out-voted by a combination of the mineowner and the miner, and the other consumers' representative not affected.

Sir S. Cripps: In that case you would have four different interests. You have to get some of them to come together to the majority view. Just because one representative, say, a consumer, does not like a decision, that is no reason for a decision not being made. If you have managed to get one consumers' representative, the mineworkers' representative and the mineowner agreeing, then merely because one consumers' representative, perhaps for some matter personal to his industry, does not agree, that does not


seem to me to be any reason why the Government should say: "We take away from the complete committee the power to decide, and give it to the chairman." I should have thought that in those circumstances the decision you got from the majority would really be a sounder decision than that you would get from the legal chairman. I do not wish to decry the legal chairman, but this is not a legal matter; it is really a commercial matter which is being investigated. I should have thought that if on a commercial matter of this kind you could get three people on the committee, apart from the independent chairman, to come to an agreement, then you would be able to say that you had done the best you could to get a sound decision, and I should have said that that was a better and sounder decision on the whole than to leave the decision solely in the hands of the legal chairman. You would be more likely to get a satisfactory result in that way.
I suggest that the Government should look into this matter again between now and the Report stage with a view to seeing whether they cannot satisfactorily solve the matter by giving the chairman a second or casting vote in the event of there being an equality of votes. That does, in fact, give him, in certain instances, if one consumer is absent for any reason, the opportunity to put himself in as another consumer and then as chairman. He could in that way always be a substitute for one of the people absent and have his own vote as chairman. That would be a satisfactory solution, and I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would consider it a satisfactory compromise. I suggest that between now and the Report stage the Minister should look into the matter on those lines.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that the consumers' interests shall be adequately safeguarded, but I cannot share the view that the Amendment is designed to secure that object. On these committees, apart from the independent chairman, there are two representatives who are interested directly in coal, the coalowner and the miner. On the consumers' side there is almost always a clash of interests, because one represents the large industrial consumers and

the other the small domestic consumers. When a complaint comes before the committee it has been sometimes found that in practice there were three parties on the committee who were in favour of the complaint not being upheld—the two representatives of the mining industry, because they thought that the price of coal would be higher, and where the complaint was, say, in respect of coal supplied to an electricity undertaking, the domestic consumer was shocked and horrified by the low price being charged to the undertaking and felt that it might very well be higher. On the other hand, where it was a case of domestic coal coming before the committee, the great public undertaking generating gas or electricity had a direct interest in the price of domestic coal being high, in order to secure a market for their gas or electricity; so you were likely to find that three out of the four members of the committee, other than the chairman, were prejudiced against the consumer from the start. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the chairman should be given a casting vote, would not meet that situation. The proper way to meet it is the method laid down in the Schedule, and that is, in the case of any disagreement to leave any decision in the hands of the chairman.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I support the Amendment. The argument of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) strengthens our position. The hon. Member is afraid that there might be occasions upon which the mineworkers' representatives on these committees would favour the poor consumer and that there might be a majority against the mineowner. I would urge the Secretary for Mines to accept the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member. For over two years I had the privilege of being a member of an investigation committee. We did not have much experience, because in two and a half years we had only one complaint. That, I suppose, is an indication that the South Wales mineowners had not been charging exorbitant prices. As the Schedule is worded, it means that the committee, according to the terms of reference, must come to a unanimous decision; otherwise the chairman will decide. If the voting results in a tie the chairman will give his casting vote and


will decide. The committee will, therefore, enter upon their work with the knowledge that unless they come to a unanimous decision it will be a waste of time to discuss the matter. That will destroy the effectiveness of the work of the committee and in a large measure destroy the valuable discussions upon which the chairman might be able to arrive at a fair estimate on which to give his casting vote.
When these committees meet there is a complaint sent out from, say, a consumer, and there is a reply from the colliery company who have supplied the coal. These documents are submitted before the meeting to each member of the committee. The chairman must be a member of the legal profession and we may assume that his knowledge of the mining industry will be very little. He comes to the meeting with nothing before him except bald statements from either side. Unless the chairman can provoke the members of the committee to discuss whether the price is a fair one or not he will have very little material upon which to form a judgment.
I suggest that the Schedule should stand as it is. If the committee meet with the knowledge that unless they are unanimous the chairman will decide, the result will be that if there is any indication that they are not likely to be unanimous they will chuck it up and leave the decision to the chairman, who will have to decide without having heard any discussion upon the particular case. From the standpoint of the consumer, industrial or domestic, this kind of committee of investigation is the poorest kind of protection they can have. The committee will be rendered useless unless they meet with the knowledge that they must hammer out a decision as a majority. Unless the committee are given some inducement to thrash out a problem there is no protection for the consumer. As it is at present there is every inducement for them to say that as they cannot be unanimous they will leave it to the chairman. We do not think a committee of investigation set up in this way is the best way to safeguard the consumers' interests.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I rise to support the Amendment and to reinforce a point put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). There is more

in this than the fact that the chairman is to have a final vote in case of a difference of opinion. He is one of five members and if the other four are unanimous and he does not like their view he has only to say that he takes a different view to the other four and he makes the decision. There is nothing unusual in giving a chairman a second or casting vote. It is the ordinary procedure in almost every limited company.

Mr. Stanley: I understood the suggestion was rather different, that the chairman should in any case have a second vote and if the voting was level he should have a casting vote as well.

Mr. Shinwell: The suggestion is that the chairman should have a vote as member of the committee and that in the event of the voting being level he should have a casting vote.

Mr. Radford: The committee is to consist of five members, but I understand that the whole of the five need not be present for business. If there are four members, including the chairman, present, and the chairman is to have a second or casting vote, it will enable the point of view of the chairman to prevail, but I think it is most undesirable to have a position in which the chairman has only to express a different opinion to all the other members to be able to make the decision. I am sure this position has only to be brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines to be rectified before the Report stage.

5.20 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I have said all through our Debates that any point raised will receive consideration before the Report stage. That is the object of having a debate. In the Schedule the chairman is the only person who has to be present at a meeting. Other members may not be present all through the proceedings or at any time during the proceedings. The quorum is to be three, and in making these arrangements we wish to be satisfied that we do not fall into the error of what would occur if all the members present were people of a particular point of view against those who were appealing. Supposing there was an appeal from the miners that the price of coal was too low. They may not be entirely satisfied to be in the hands of


two persons who were definitely there as the representatives of the consumers, and similarly the consumers may not be satisfied if in the particular appeal they make there are no consumers' representatives present. The question is not quite so easy as hon. Members have pointed out. It was to get over a difficulty of that kind that we put into the Bill that the chairman should always be there whatever happened, and that he should take the decision.

Mr. Radford: But outside all questions as to the representation of consumers and coalowners what is the hon. and gallant Member's answer to this point? There is the old story of the one juryman who said that the other n jurymen were very obstinate. It is possible for an obstinate chairman of any committee of investigation to say on every occasion that his decision is to prevail. He has only to differ with his colleagues and he has the sole right to decide. I think such a position requires some definite undertaking that it will be considered by the Government with a view to rectification.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The Secretary for Mines has said that he will consider the matter before Report stage. What does he mean by that? I think we want some more definite assurances. There has been no stated grievance in respect of the committee of investigation on this point. Something has been said about the inaccessibility of the committee of investigation and the need for appointing substitute members so as to have a quorum on every occasion to enable business to proceed. On this ground there have been grievances, but as far as I can gather no one has expressed a grievance on the ground that the chairman was not permitted to take a decision himself in the absence of unanimity on the part of his colleagues, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will clarify the point.

5.25 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I know nothing about coal and I am a perfectly independent person, but I am astonished at the wording of this Schedule. In the whole of my experience I have never seen such a paragraph. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is perfectly right, and I hope the Government will consider the matter again

and consider it in a favourable spirit. If it is not amended I am certain the public will think it is lunacy, and when it gets to another place it will be treated as lunacy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment very favourably.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I wonder whether the Minister realises the effect it will have on a committee of investigation if the committee knows that the chairman has power to overrule it. It will stultify any attempt at arriving at an accommodation among the four members, and one cannot conceive of such a proposal as this going through this House or through another place. I am speaking with the experience of arbitration and I am convinced that to let the chairman have a deciding vote of this kind will stultify the whole proceedings of the committee.

Captain Crookshank: That is certainly the last thing one wants to happen. I do not think I can carry it any further at the moment, but I do say that we will consider the matter before Report stage.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I take that as a promise that there will be some variation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 80, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(3D) Any other question relating to the meetings or procedure of a committee of investigation shall be decided in accordance with directions issued by the Board of Trade for the purpose.
I am moving this Amendment in order to ensure that no difficulty shall arise in carrying through the operations of any committee of investigation. An attempt is being made to strengthen these bodies and we are in cordial agreement with that, but there may be some emergency, some difficulty about calling a committee together, or some dispute on the committee of investigation itself, and we think that an appeal by a consumer may not be expeditiously carried through. We wish to ensure that the Board of Trade shall have the power to issue directions to enable the committees of investigation to proceed. It may be that by the provisions of the Schedule, this Amendment is not needed, but I have moved it in order to clarify


the situation and in the hope of obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that nothing will stand in the way of the smooth working of the committees of investigation.

5.31 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: From the point of view of expedition, we are assisted by sub-paragraph (3B), which provides for substitute members. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) would have been more fortunate if he had not moved this Amendment. The last sentence of sub-paragraph (3B) reads:
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Subsection, the meetings and procedure of every committee of investigation shall be regulated in accordance with rules made by the Board of Trade for the purpose.
As far as I can see, the Amendment says the same thing, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will not press it to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I beg to move, in page 82, line 29, at the end, to insert:
7.—(1) There shall be constituted a Consumers Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Consumers Committee,") which shall consist of a chairman and not less than six other members who shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of coal. Such Committee shall be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on—

(i) the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force; and
(ii) any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal.
(2) If the Consumers Committee reports to the Minister that any provision of a marketing scheme or any act or omission of an executive board administering such a scheme is, in their opinion, contrary to the interests of consumers of coal or is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister may, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report, refer the matter to the Central Appeal Tribunal to be constituted as hereinbefore provided for their consideration.
(3) For the purpose of enabling the Committee or the Central Appeal Tribunal to consider any matter which it is their duty under this paragraph to consider the Council, or the Executive Board, administering the scheme to which the matter relates, shall furnish to the Committee or Tribunal such accounts and other information relating to the affairs of the Board as the Committee or Tribunal consider relevant, and shall be entitled to make repre-

sentation to the Committee or Tribunal with respect to the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister.
(4) If the Central Appeal Tribunal reports to the Minister that any provision of a marketing scheme or any act or omission of a board administering such a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers of coal or is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report—

(a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
(b) may by order revoke the scheme;
(c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order;
and it shall be the duty of the Board administering such a scheme to comply with any directions applying to that Board which are contained in an order under head (c) of this sub-paragraph.
Provided that—

(i) every order under head (a) or head (c) of this sub-paragraph shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before Parliament and if either House of Parliament within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, it shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order;
(ii) an order under head (b) of this subparagraph shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament; and
(iii) before taking any action under this sub-paragraph the Minister shall give the Board administering the scheme notice of the action which he proposes to take, and shall consider any representations made by the Board within fourteen days after the date of the notice."
This Amendment seeks to create what one might call a consumers' committee. The gist of the Amendment is that:
There shall be constituted a consumers' committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'consumers' committee"), which shall consist of a chairman and not less than six other members who shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of coal.
We have heard a good deal recently about the interests of the consumers. The Amendment would give to those who wish to render service to the consumers an opportunity of making good their words by setting up a committee which would have power to safeguard the interests of con-


summers, but I am very much afraid that those who represent the coalowners and the mineworkers will see to it that the Amendment is turned down. The object of the Amendment is not altogether unknown to members of the Government. The Sea Fish Industry Bill, which is being considered in the Standing Committee at the present time, protects the interests of the consumers by constituting a consumers' committee. I do not pretend that the cases of coal and sea fish are absolutely analogous, but I suggest that if it be considered necessary that the consumers of sea fish should be protected from exploitation, it is equally necessary that the consumers of coal should be similarly protected. This Amendment gives considerable powers with a view to protecting those interests. It provides that the consumers' committee
shall be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on—

(i) the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force; and
(ii) any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal."
If the consumers' committee report to the Minister that the interests of the consumers are adversely affected, the course of action that shall be taken is laid down, and it goes to the length of providing that the Minister

"(a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
(b) may by order revoke the scheme;
(c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order."
It will be seen that the powers of the consumers' committee would be very wide, but in my submission they would not be too wide for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the consumers of such a vital commodity as coal. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), in a speech which he made a short time ago, said that the consumers usually get a fair deal. Let us consider the sort of fair deal which they have been getting during the last two or three years, and on that basis judge whether or not a consumers' committee is necessary. I will deal first of all with the prices

charged to public utility undertakings manufacturing electricity. I will specify certain contracts which they entered into, and the prices which they had to pay before the scheme was fully working, and the prices which they had to pay last year.

Mr. G. Macdonald: On a point of Order. For the purpose of being clear about previous Rulings on this matter, may I ask whether we are entitled to discuss prices beyond the first transaction?

The Chairman: No. I have given a Ruling on that point, and so far the hon. and gallant Member has not transgressed that Ruling. At the moment, he has said nothing, his Amendment says nothing, which goes beyond the first contract. He appears to have kept very carefully within my ruling.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Sir, and I shall take the greatest care not to transgress it in any way. The prices to which I shall refer will be the prices of the first transaction, that is to say, the transaction of the electricity company which buys direct from the colliery. The first contract I will mention is one in which, in 1933, the electricity undertaking purchased coal at the pithead at 8s. 2d. per ton, whereas in 1937, the contract price had risen to 16s. 2d. per ton, an increase of nearly 100 per cent.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please specify to what class of coal he refers, otherwise the figures are meaningless?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: The coal came from South Yorkshire pits, and the prices are for screened coal. In 1937, the undertaking obtained a quality of coal as similar as possible to that which it got in 1933. In another contract, the prices were similar. In 1933, the pithead price was 8s. 4d. and in 1937 it was 16s. 5d., an increase of 97 per cent. In the case of a contract for unscreened coal, in 1933 the price was 4s. 3d. per ton and in 1937, 12s. 6d. per ton, an increase of 173 per cent. That is the sort of fair deal which that electricity undertaking has been getting under the 1930 Coal Act. I come now to the worst case of all, a contract for slack coal. I admit that no doubt the price charged for the coal in 1933 was utterly and hopelessly an uneconomic one, but at the same time, I think that the


increase of 212 per cent. which the undertaking has had to pay is excessive, and shows that very gross profiteering is taking place on the part of the coal-owning and coal-working interests.

Mr. G. Macdonald: What are the figures?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: In 1933, the contract price for this small coal was 3s. per ton pithead, whereas in 1937, it was 13s. 3d., an increase of 212 per cent. Let me now turn to another interest which is predominant in my constituency, that is to say, the fishing industry. The increase in price in the average contract in the present year as compared with two years ago is no less than 4s. per ton. Exactly the same thing applies to the shipping industry as a whole. We hear a great many complaints about unpatriotic Steamer owners changing their ships over from coal to oil. It is not merely a case of oil being cleaner and more convenient than coal, but a question of price. If coal is to be had at a price which is better than the price of oil, coal will continue to be used; but if that is not so, the owners, in their interest and in the national interest, must change over to oil. Let hon. Members not forget that the British shipping industry is open to world-wide competition, and that unless it can offer competitive rates, it will have to go under. My submission is that these arbitrary increases in the price of coal to which I have referred show that it is essential that adequate steps should be taken to protect the interests of consumers.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I ask the Committee seriously to consider this Amendment. I assure hon. Members that there is an uneasy feeling in the country that the consumer is not getting a square deal. I should like to amplify the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) with reference to the price of coal, by explaining that the price of 3s. 11d. per ton which he mentioned was the price of coal which had to go through a three-sixteenth mesh, and that the largest particle of coal was the size of a pea. I would also remind the Committee that only a few years ago certain colliery owners allowed people to take this slack coal away free. We have now got to the pitch that the corporation electricity

and gas undertakings, which I am glad to say are limited in their profits, are asking not so much that the miners and mine-owners shall be beaten down in regard to the price of coal, but that they shall get much better service than they are getting at the present time. Prices have gone up and I would remind the Committee that when the Government made the proposal that the price should be increased by one shilling a ton on existing contracts, the municipal authorities of the country were the first to agree to that increase, on condition that the shilling went to the miner. Since that time question after question has been put to the Secretary of Mines to find out whether the shilling is going to the miner. There has been an uneasy feeling that the miner is not getting the shilling which the municipal authorities agreed to pay.

If this Amendment cannot be accepted, we appeal to the Government to make the central marketing scheme really operative. Again, I want to say that the municipal authorities, as one of their spokesmen told me only on Saturday, are not so much interested in a low price as in getting a much better service than that which they are at present receiving from the Mining Association of Great Britain. I share with the President of the Board of Trade the feeling that we cannot have much confidence in the Mining Association of Great Britain. Its history has been one chapter after another of incidents such as locking out the miners or trying to put pressure on the public—so much so that one might properly describe the Mining Association as Public Enemy No. 1. I agree that the terms of the Amendment have been "lifted" from the Sea Fish Bill and that they also appeared in a programme associated to some extent with one party of this House.

We do not trust the mineowners. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a trenchant and powerful speech last week in which he said that the mineowner and the subsidiary company were members of the same team wearing d'fferent jerseys. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was full of scorn last week when he spoke of corporations and corporation committees and electricity and gas engineers getting coal down by a penny or twopence a ton, but those municipal committees have a duty to the ratepayers and to the consumers. If the mineowner exploits the consumer—


and in the last analysis it is the mine-owner who does so—whether the consumer happens to be Mrs. Smith who lives in my street or the corporation to which I pay rates, all suffer in the long run. I appeal to this Committee to insist that we ought to have service if we can have nothing else from the Mining Association of Great Britain. It is all right for the Jacob of Leeds to speak here in his dulcet tones about giving fair play to the mineworker and the general public but while the voice is the voice of Jacob the hands are the hairy hands of the Esau of Wales—Esau Williams. We want some check even upon South Yorkshire and Yorkshire coalowners as to the price at which they are selling at the pithead, whether it is to Mrs. Smith or the Hull Electricity Committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Or the London Midland and Scottish.

Mr. Muff: Or the London Midland and Scottish, I agree, or the subsidiary company in which the mining undertaking is interested. Since 1930 all we have had is a "take it or leave it" attitude on the part of the Mining Association of Great Britain. If I were asked to suggest a coat of arms for the Mining Association of Great Britain, I should say that certainly a bar-sinister would be there, and the crest would probably be eight fingers and two thumbs, extended rampant and "cocking snooks" at the rest of the community.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir Lambert Ward) in asking the Government to consider this Amendment favourably. Members of the Committee will have seen that the committee of investigation which has been inquiring into the contract prices charged to the Lancashire cotton-spinning industry in 1938 has found that the proposed prices are excessive and that some increase was justifiable but not those proposed. Commercial and other consumers in some cases buy directly from the collieries, but in other cases they are so situated that they are compelled to buy from the coal merchants who have the handling of coal in their particular area. I wish to know whether your Ruling, Sir Dennis, which I have no wish to transgress, debars us

from discussing the price charged to consumers who buy from coal merchants?

The Chairman: I think that is so. This Amendment deals only with the first contract between the coalowner and the first purchaser.

Mr. Radford: The committee of investigation having reported that these prices which are now being charged to various units in the cotton industry are excessive, and an undertaking having been given by the Central Coalowning Association to my right hon. Friend that they would go into these matters to ensure that supplies of the same quality can be secured by consumers at the finally agreed price, the position may well arise that while some cotton mills, which buy directly from a colliery, will have protection, those which, owing to their location, are compelled to buy from coal merchants, will be denied that protection. It was a great disappointment to me and I am sure to many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee when it was made clear both from the Chair and from the Front Bench that only what was described as the first purchaser was to be protected. For the life of me I cannot see why that should be so. I agree that if the same consignment of coal changed hands from one merchant to another it would be impossible to trace it to its final destination, but when a commercial undertaking which is compelled by circumstances to buy from the merchant who sells in its area is denied protection, then such a consumers' protection committee as this Amendment seeks to have established is highly desirable. I cannot help noticing that when there is any talk about consumers and prices it seems to cramp the style of hon. Members opposite. They are torn by conflicting emotions. With their own fair-mindedness they sympathise with the consumer who is being exploited—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would the hon. Member justify prices of 8s. 2d. and 8s. 4d. at the pithead for screened coal in 1933, or 3s. 11d. for slack? That is the reason why we have been hammering at the coal-owners for years. They have been throwing away the coal at the expense of the poor miners.

The Chairman: Thereference made earlier to those figures was relevant to the question under discussion, in so far as it was a matter of comparison with other


figures, but I do not think it would be in order to discuss whether these prices are adequate or not.

Mr. Radford: My technical knowledge is inadequate to reply fully to the hon. Member but when he talks about screened coal I take it that the type of coal resulting from the screening, depends on the size of the mesh.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going into the matter which I have just intimated is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Mr. Radford: I shall not pursue it any further, and I was only going to say to hon. Members opposite that, bearing in mind this question of the first purchase, they ought not to be unduly nervous about espousing the cause of the consumer, particularly when, in many cases, the first purchaser is a subsidiary concern owned by the colliery proprietor. In such cases the miners' wages, about which they are so solicitous, will not benefit by any additional price put on by the selling agency.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: There will be general agreement in the Committee that if consumers have grievances those grievances ought to be remedied, but it is clear that if we are seeking to protect the interests of the consumers as a whole, and not the first consumer only, the Amendment is completely innocuous. It relates only to the first price. It can do no more because of the restricted nature of the Bill. It may be that at a subsequent stage the right hon. Gentleman may consider it expedient to set up a public or departmental inquiry to consider the price to the ultimate consumer and indeed the whole question of distribution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman regards that as a matter which is important arising out of this Measure, but it certainly is important from the standpoint of the consumers who fail utterly to comprehend why the pithead price should be comparatively low and the retail price excessively high. I am aware that on previous occasions committees of inquiry have thoroughly investigated these matters but unfortunately no legislative enactments have followed those inquiries. I throw out that suggested to the right hon. Gentleman because of the discussions that have taken place in this Committee.
Undoubtedly the consumers in this Bill have grievances. They complain that the price is too high, they complain about irregularity of supply, and they also complain about the quality of coal with which they are supplied. Before I proceed to deal with these matters, let me say that the fact that the Lancashire Committee of Investigation have recently had many cases submitted to them in their district is conclusive evidence that grievances exist. The blame cannot be laid at the door of the mineworker, who is as suspicious as the consumer about the first price. He fails to understand why prices should have risen to the height mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). The proceeds do not find their way into the ascertainment so far as it affects the miners' wages. These, however, are matters which we cannot discuss on this Schedule, except to say that the consumers have grievances, but so have the mineworkers, and while the mineworkers sympathise with the grievance of the consumers, the consumers might very properly sympathise in a practical fashion with the grievances of the mineworkers. I leave it there. Recently we have been able to obtain some evidence about alleged grievances in respect of the first price. I have had placed in my hands several documents prepared by public utility undertakings and municipal bodies. I find, for example, that in the case of Scotland both Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations have been compelled to pay excessively increased prices over the past year, about which they raise small complaint, because they recognise that prices were much too low in the years of depression; and that is a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, who referred to the disparity in prices in recent years. But what they do complain of is the difficulty in obtaining necessary supplies to carry on their operations. For example, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation, they ordered, in the last three months of 1937, 230,000 tons, but there were only delivered to them 190,000 tons, leaving a shortage of 40,000 tons; and in the case of the Edinburgh gas undertaking, which ordered 91,900 tons, only 71,000 tons were delivered.
That complaint is typical of the com-plants now made by public utility undertakings. It may be that demand is over-


taking supply, which is quite unusual for the mining industry, at any rate during the last half-dozen years. Nevertheless, it imposes serious hardships on those responsible for the administration of these undertakings. They must retain stocks, and when stocks become depleted they are at their wits' end as to how to carry on. I am well aware that they have the right to apply to the committees of investigation, submit evidence, and have their case investigated, upon which steps may be taken within the 1930 Act, and similarly they will have he power under this Bill, when it is on the Statute Book, to have their case investigated, and directions will be issued in order to meet their grievances, but the difficulty is inaccessibility. When the committees of investigation were established in 1931 the intention was to have not only a committee of investigation in each of the districts—and there are 21—but a secretariat associated with the committees of investigation.
It was, however, found that, owing to the paucity of complaints—there were few complaints in the months, indeed years, following the passing of the 1930 Bill—fewer secretaries and staffs were required, and the result is that if Edinburgh or Glasgow has a complaint to make to a committee of investigation in its area, it must go through the Sheffield office. When complaints are few, that matters little—the Sheffield secretary can dispose of them expeditiously—but when complaints are numerous, as, they have become of late, obstacles arise, and in consequence considerable time elapses before the complaints are investigated. In the meantime these undertakings are unable to find the necessary stocks to carry on their operations. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman might consider, as a purely temporary expedient—I do not go further than that—the establishment of a secretariat in each district, so that instead of public utility undertakings having to apply to a secretary 300 or 400 miles away, or even 200 miles away, and finding the passages completely blocked at a time of stress and pressure, it would be possible to have the cases more expeditiously investigated. As the complaints diminished, it would be possible to have a diminution in the number of secretariats. I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman because it would meet the

grievances of consumers who complain about inaccessibility and the lack of expedition in hearing their cases.
I pass to another matter which bears on this Amendment, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions which arise out of the assurances that he gave the other day in respect of complaints of consumers and the method of remedying those complaints. He gave the Committee an assurance that the Central Council of Coalowners were offering guarantees, which might be regarded by the Committee as adequate, for the purpose of remedying grievances. On these matters I venture to ask him a few questions: first of all, as regards the first assurance, which is that arrangements would be made in all the districts whereby a purchaser—that is, a first purchaser; it always is the first purchaser under the terms of this Bill—would be enabled to refer to a committee of investigation a complaint in respect of any price quoted to him. That we understand, but if in any district—Yorkshire, Durham, Scotland, South Wales, North Wales, as the case may be—there is established by the colliery undertakings a unified selling agency as a subsidiary concern, so as to prevent any single colliery undertaking disposing of its coal to a first purchaser, how far does that assurance carry us in dealing with the grievances of consumers?
Let me furnish an example, a hypothetical case, but I think it relates to the facts. Suppose the first purchase price at the pithead is 17s. a ton for a particular category of coal. As the coal is not sold in that way at the pithead, but is disposed of through a unified selling agency, a subsidiary concern, you have thereby no other means of purchasing the coal, then obviously we are considering not merely the first purchase, but a secondary purchase, and on that issue I should like to be advised by the right hon. Gentleman whether the assurance to which I have referred will enable legitimate grievances to be attended to. The first price may be 17s., but the real price, the actual price paid by the consumer, may be 24s. On that, I think we require some further assurance; and may I say, in passing, that the mineworker gains nothing by this secondary price? The man's wages are determined by the first price, and yet that may be a figment, a purely fictitious price. I do not say that it applies all round, but there may be cases of that kind.

Captain Crookshank: I would like your guidance, Sir Dennis, whether it will be in order to discuss all these matters that we discussed the other day on the Clause extending the operation of the Bill, because this Amendment only deals with setting up a consumers' committee.

Mr. Shinwell: On that point of Order. I was raising this question of assurances in order to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend before advising my hon. Friends as to the line that they should take on this Amendment. If the assurances are sufficient for our purpose, it will be unnecessary to support the Amendment, and that is why I was elaborating this point.

The Chairman: I have been trying to follow this very carefully, and until his last two sentences I had not thought the hon. Member had gone beyond what was in order, but when he came to the question of the position of the second purchase, I began to listen more carefully. I did not interrupt him then, because I thought the Minister had made reference to that assurance and that perhaps it was legitimate to ask that question; but on this Amendment these assurances must not be discussed except in so far as they may deal with matters which this Amendment contemplates should be dealt with by the committee which it proposes to set up.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged, Sir Dennis, because I think it was the intention of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull to set up a body which would deal with this matter, but I am not dealing with the second purchaser at all. I am dealing, in asking these questions about this specific assurance, with what may be in fact the first actual purchase price, but yet not the pithead price. The pithead price may be 17s. but the actual price at which the first consumer is purchasing the coal may be different.

The Chairman: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's distinction. These assurances are not matters which can be discussed fully on this Amendment. They can only be referred to in so far as they may be said to relate to a specific matter which it is contemplated would be investigated and reported upon by the consumers' committee.

Mr. Shinwell: In the Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks that the committee should be charged with the duty of considering and of reporting to the Minister the effect of a marketing scheme which is for the time being in force. That, of course, refers to prices. He also asks that the Committee should report on any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal. These terms are very wide. I shall try to keep within the terms of your Ruling and not elaborate these points unduly. I turn to another assurance which bears on the demand made in this Amendment. The third assurance says that in all districts the executive boards will be prepared to meet representative bodies of consumers and discuss general questions appertaining to the supply of coal arising out of the selling scheme. That is a very desirable means of dealing with this matter; but suppose no settlement ensues, suppose representative bodies of consumers approach the executive boards, which represent the central council of coal-owners—

The Chairman: That is outside the scope of the Amendment because such a proceeding would be subsequent to the first arrangement under a selling scheme.

Mr. Shinwell: I presume that I may be allowed to discuss this on the question that the Schedule stand part?

The Chairman: I do not think so. I think this it out of order altogether either on this Amendment or on the Schedule.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that this is out of order because the assurances were out of order?

The Chairman: No. Perhaps I used a wrong phrase. It is out of order because we have passed beyond the part of the Bill on which the question of the assurances arose. We have passed that now and we cannot re-open it.

Mr. Shinwell: I will put it in a more general form and will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he regards the assurances which he referred to the other day in Committee as sufficient to meet the grievances of consumers. If he can give a general reply it may be possible to make up our minds as to the advisability of supporting the Amendment. In this


Bill we are dealing with something different from the Sea Fish Bill. Selling schemes have been in operation for some time for coal. This is not a new marketing scheme. The basis of a marketing scheme has been operating since 1930. In the case of the Sea Fish Bill we are dealing with something that is contemplated and it is doubtful whether the consumers of fish will be properly protected. Our objection to this Amendment is based primarily on the fact, which I believe has been established, that wherever consumers' committees have been set up they have been of little value. In the case of the Food Council, which is an analogous body, we know a little of its investigations and of their consequences. It is doubtful whether this is the best remedy.
My view is that the best remedy, if we are to deal with the grievances of consumers, is to be sought in committees of investigation. I am speaking of the first consumer, although I should much like to deal with the ultimate consumer. I would only remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said about a possible public inquiry. I have a belief in committees of investigation if they are properly used. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke of the grievances of the Hull Corporation and of the public utility companies in the district, but did he inquire whether those bodies had approached the committee of investigation? I doubt whether they did. If they did—and they had a right to do it—what was the result?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: They did not.

Mr. Shinwell: That completely disposes of the case. They had a right to approach the committee of investigation but they failed to do it. They may have had no faith in the committee, but they ought to have tried it out. If consumers have grievances, their best method is to approach the committees of investigation and to use them, as they are entitled to do under the 1930 Act. If it is found that the committees have failed in remedying the grievances of consumers, it will clearly be a duty imposed on the right hon. Gentleman to introduce amending legislation. For those reasons I am afraid that hon. Members on this side will not find it possible to support the Amendment.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I rise to say a word about a point about which there seems to be some misunderstanding in several quarters of the Committee. It is assumed that the safeguards provided under this Bill and under the 1930 Act are a fraud and a delusion because a colliery has only to sell to a subsidiary undertaking to avoid the provision in regard to committees of investigation. That idea is a complete delusion. Nobody in this country is compelled to buy coal from a subsidiary of a colliery concern. This is still a comparatively free country and customers are free to get quotations, if they do not like the quotations given by subsidiary undertakings, from the colliery concerns themselves. Two sorts of schemes for selling coal are established under the 1930 Act. One is the central selling scheme under which all the coal is sold by the central organisation. The other is a controlled selling scheme where collieries continue to sell their own coal under central direction. Under either of these schemes it is open to a customer to obtain quotations from the coal-selling authority, whether it be a colliery concern or the central selling organisation. I can think of no better complaint to be taken to a committee of investigation under the provisions of this Bill than a complaint that the colliery or the central selling organisation has refused to quote for coal. I can well imagine that if any complaint of that sort were brought forward and proved, my hon. and gallant Friend would be quick to see that the complaints were remedied immediately or that the schemes were dissolved, as he has power to dissolve them, because the powers given to the coal industry were being grossly abused.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put a question to the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)? We want to be perfectly frank with each other about this matter. Take the case of a colliery company who does not sell to anybody but whose coal is handled by a subsidiary company so that anybody who wants a quotation has to make application to a subsidiary. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that in that case a consumer can take to the committee of investigation a complaint against a price offered by a subsidiary company?

Mr. Peake: No. I suggest that a consumer who is dissatisfied should ask the


colliery concerned to give him a quotation, and if it refuses, he has a clear case to go before a committee of investigation.

Mr. Griffiths: Such a case would be very interesting. In South Wales and other places the practice has been growing for colliery companies to constitute selling agencies. In some cases they have bought up old-established selling agencies and used the organisation to dispose of every ton of their coal. There are powerful colliery companies which, as such, do not quote any prices to inquirers.

The Chairman: What the hon. Member is saying looks as if he is getting beyond what is dealt with by the Bill, namely, the first contract. We cannot now deal with the next party who has to go to a selling organisation.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for North Leeds, to whom we all listen carefully, for he has been accepted generally as the spokesman of the coalowners, made a suggestion, and I was attempting to reply to it. Speaking for my colleagues and myself, I do not accept the position as the hon. Gentleman stated it. When the hon. and gallant Baronet was moving the Amendment some of us interjected, and another hon. Member thought that we had been touched on the raw. We had. As we have said so many times, the position in the coal industry is this: We have a price level fixed in the years of depression which everybody uses now as a comparison. They take the prices for 1933 and the years before, when there was a large surplus of coal on the market, and the consumers were able to pit colliery against colliery and district against district and depress prices to a low level, which, in turn, led to a low level of wages for the miners. Miners earning 30s. and 35s. are not able to get one penny increase, because the owners say they are unable to get any more for their coal.

The Chairman: That is a matter on which I have already tried to stop debate.

Mr. Griffiths: I will merely remark that this method of comparison is not fair. The prices then were too low for any real comparison. My colleagues and I, if we thought that the procedure of a consumers' council set up in this Amendment would be a real safeguard for all consumers, would support it, but I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that we think the

best safeguards are those already established under the investigation committees. Let those be used to the full, with the procedure amended in the way referred to earlier, so that full discussion can take place. I believe I am correct in saying that a complaint of this kind is to be heard in public and that will be the best safeguard of all. Let the whole of the discussions take place in public. Let in some fresh air. It is secrecy which has led to uneasiness and apprehension in the public mind. The miners do not want this secrecy. They want the fullest publicity. What they have complained of is that there is never that publicity which ought to be given to the internal management of the industry.
I do not want to transgress your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I want to make sure that at some stage we can raise the question of the assurances which have been given. Since those assurances were read out by the President of the Board of Trade we have been able to study them. The assurances have been accepted by the Government, and therefore, in effect, if not in words, they have become a part of this scheme. They will not appear in the Bill, and I do not know whether they will appear in the Parliamentary record, but they have been accepted, and surely there ought to be an opportunity for us to discuss them before we part with this Bill. If this is not the appropriate moment can we raise the matter on the Report stage or on Third Reading? We have had an opportunity of looking at them carefully, and there are certain questions we want to ask. Speaking for myself and some of my colleagues, I may say that we do not altogether like those assurances. If it is not possible to discuss them, then hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position, because the assurances will become part of the scheme without having been discussed.

The Chairman: So far as the Committee stage is concerned, I am quite clear that they cannot be discussed either on this Amendment or on the Question, "That this be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill." As regards raising the matter on the Report stage or Third Reading, as the hon. Member knows, that question does not lie with me, and, therefore, although most people might be able to form an opinion, it would be improper for me to give one.

6.35 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said a few words on the actual Amendment, this all-party Amendment which emanates from Hull.

Mr. J. Griffiths: From where?

Captain Crookshank: From Hull. I agree entirely with the view of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that the best remedy, if grievances there are, would be to have them submitted to the committees of investigation under their revised procedure, and that that method ought to be tried out. It is because we think that the new arrangements made in this Schedule will be effective that I ask the Committee not to accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-west Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). As I read the Amendment, the idea is that there should be a consumers' committee which should report direct to the Minister, and that the Minister, if he thinks right, should refer the matter to the Central Appeal Tribunal, and after that certain consequences might flow in the way of making Orders and the like. That would be procedure somewhat parallel to that envisaged in the Bill. Under the Bill, if the consumer has a grievance he may take it to a committee of investigation, and if he does not get what he considers to be satisfaction he may go to the Central Appeal Tribunal. So there would be two channels for complaints to reach that body. Under the Schedule as it stands the Central Appeal Tribunal has to meet almost immediately after a case is referred to it, and to decide the case with all possible speed, because, as is sometimes overlooked, in the commercial as well as the colliery's interests, one wants to get speed of decision and finality. Otherwise, business obviously would be held up.

As the Amendment reads, this consumers' committee would consist entirely of spokesmen for consuming interests. There is to be an independent chairman, but it would be a consumers' body, and it would only take up matters which it thought were contrary to the interests of consumers of coal. Their only locus would arise from the consuming point of view, whereas the committees of investigation have a rather wider purview. They have to consider complaints about proceedings:

which are having or are likely to have an effect contrary to the public interest or ought not to be permitted on the ground that they are unfair or inequitable.

Mr. H. G. Williams: "Public interest" occurs in this Amendment.

Captain Crookshank: Yes, but its purpose is directed primarily to the interests of the consumers. It has a bias in that direction. I suggest that the procedure in the Bill is much better for dealing with this type of complaint. The case has been put to us of the prices charged to the Hull Corporation, and the prices in 1933 have been contrasted with the prices in 1937. The first observation I would make is that the selling schemes did not come into effect until 1936, and so any change in prices between 1933 and 1936—and I do not know how far there had been any change in those years—has nothing to do with what we are now discussing. I would also remind the Committee that the reason why the selling schemes were ever instituted was that the price of coal had reached such an uneconomic level from the point of view of industry as a whole, whether from the point of view of those who sink their capital in it or those—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Who sink their lives.

Captain Crookshank: —if the hon. Member likes to put it in that way—who devote all their lives to it and earn their wages in it. I think it was the fact that in many cases these strong buyers were able to depress prices against the coal industry, and while the hon. Baronet quoted cases in which unscreened slack was sold in 1933 at 3s. 11d. to 4s. 11d., I should think all the other municipalities must have been surprised when they heard that anyone was able to buy at that price, because I should think that was just about the lowest figure that anyone got down to. It has come out during the Debate that in spite of the rise in price of which they complain, the Hull Corporation did not take a case to a committee of investigation. They started to do so, but withdrew it.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Because they found the procedure to be thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Captain Crookshank: How could they find out unless they tried it?

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Others had tried it.

Captain Crookshank: How, therefore, can it be said that this new price is unfair? It is just as likely to be the case that the price in 1933 was grossly unfair, and that the present price is the one which ought to have been charged. His colleague in the representation of Hull made the point that years ago this type of slack was sold for very little—thrown away, given way, he said. Nowadays, for one reason or another, it fetches a price, the laws of supply and demand come into play, and if there is a great demand for a particular commodity which years ago they could sell for very little, I do not see how we can blame people for getting the best price they can for it, because it all goes towards making up the general average of pithead prices.
I do not think a case has been made out that the new procedure suggested would improve the situation. We hold that the committees of investigation are the real avenue which should be taken by consumers if they have complaints. An hon. Member also made the point that the secretariat is largely centred in Sheffield, and that there might be difficulties in the matter of accessibility, and asked whether the secretariat could be extended. The answer to that is that when the Act of 1930 was put on the Statute Book an organisation was set up covering the country, but no complaint was made for a very long period, and we cannot afford to keep people all over the country doing nothing. Therefore, their numbers were gradually reduced. But the converse will hold good: as and when the demand for the services of the secretariat and staff increase, so they will be increased, because it is important that there should be no undue delay in investigating complaints.
On another question which was addressed to me debate was ruled out of order, but perhaps I might answer it. I was asked whether I regarded the assurances which have been given as sufficient for meeting the grievances of consumers. The answer would be, "Yes; coupled with the improvements in the committees of investigation, those assurances cover practically every point which has been brought to our notice of recent months." Therefore, my right hon. Friend and I recommend that this proposal for an

extra committee over and above what is provided—and what has been provided under the law for some years past—should be rejected, because it would not add anything to the ease with which consumers can make their representations, but might very well have a contrary effect, and by complicating the situation make it more difficult for them to secure proper redress when they have genuine grievances.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The Minister does not yet seem to appreciate that the reason why this Amendment has attracted support is because what he has said just now is not yet accepted by the majority of affected persons. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), an hon. Member opposite and the Minister have all just said the same thing, Why not try the committees of investigation? The answer is that a large number of people have tried them and are profoundly dissatisfied.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I said that I had served upon a South Wales committee for some years, and that we had had one case in two and a half years. Does the hon. Member suggest that on a basis of one case in two and a half years it is fair to suggest that this is a useful procedure?

Mr. Williams: It may very well be a case of not many appeals coming from South Wales. I know of over 48, but all of them have been non-suited on the ground that many of our speeches this evening have been ruled out of order. The issue in question cannot be tried.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has given his own case away. With regard to the point that he has raised, I did not make any special statement as to what could be discussed on this Amendment, except that when the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) rose to a point of Order, I made it clear, and the hon. and gallant Baronet who moved the Amendment also made it clear, that the Amendment was so carefully drawn as to avoid going beyond the particular question of the first cost. If the hon. Member now wishes to discuss the general question of the distribution of coal, he is out of order, because it is irrelevant to an Amendment which does not deal with that more general question.

Mr. Williams: I apologise if I expressed myself in a manner which was out of order, but I was led into it by the last three speakers, and even by the Minister, all of whom said that if we would only try the committees of investigation, everything would be all right. We are reproached, and so is my hon. and gallant Friend, whose corporation did not try. I presume they had watched what happened to the other people. I have met representatives of many of these eminent corporations. I think Birmingham was one; they spent a great deal of money and went before a committee of investigation, but they had no more luck than most of us, because they were permitted to discuss only the first price. That is the trouble. Therefore, it is no use for the Minister to keep repeating that an investigation into the first price by these committees of investigation with their new powers solves the problem, because it does not.
I had a letter from an old friend of mine who lives in the West Country. It indicates the point of view of many people and says:
I am very glad to see you are taking up this question of coal. I do not like the present arrangement at all. We had a nasty shock a fortnight ago. Our contracts with two well-known Welsh firms are up in March, and they have informed us that the price of the new contracts will be 3s. a ton more than we now pay. When we complained "—

Mr. J. Griffiths: What are they now paying?

Mr. Williams: I do not know.

Mr. Mainwaring: That is enlightening.

Mr. Williams: I might just as well finish off the letter:
When we complained to them, they replied that they could do nothing, because they had to take their instructions from the coal controller.

Mr. Shinwell: Who is the coal controller?

Mr. Williams: That is what I would like to know. I agree that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes in this Amendment that we should consider the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force and
any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal.

Mr. Shinwell: Who is the consumer?

Mr. Williams: The consumer referred to in the Amendment. I had the pleasure of watching the hon. Member's difficulties, so I shall do my best to keep out of them. These people have been told by somebody. They are complaining, and the collieries are complaining, obviously as to the first transaction. They say: "It is outside our control." Therefore, here is a case which might be looked into by this independent body. It is independent of the collieries and of the Mining Association. The committee of investigation, by its composition, is in part a biased body. Certain people are there to do all they can to prevent any investigation being as satisfactory as it might be. I do not blame them. One member of the committee is a coalowner and another is a miner. Therefore they are in agreement, however much they might disagree later as to the division of the swag. They are in alliance.

Mr. Shinwell: There is a considerable difference of opinion on the point which the hon. Member is heroically trying to raise, the difference between the first price and the second price.

The Chairman: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who, I say with all respect, is trying very ably to keep in order, is rather wasting his breath. He is trying very hard not to get out of order in discussing a matter which is entirely out of order. The Amendment which the hon. and gallant Baronet has proposed would not have been in order if it had been an Amendment which could deal with these complaints of people subsequent to the first person. As far as I have been able to read, the proposed Amendment would not give these so-called consumers' committees the slightest power to interfere with the general question of distribution of coal after the first purchase. Therefore, although I have not felt a need to pull up the hon. Member so far, I was beginning to wonder how long he could go on without my doing so.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member opposite intervened and drew your attention to the one point in my speech in which curiously enough, I was strictly in order, because I was seeking to compare the action of the committee which it is proposed to set up in the Amendment with the action of the existing committees


of investigation which are allowed to deal only with the first price.

Mr. Stanley: Is it proposed that this consumers' council should be able to deal with more than the first person?

Mr. Williams: No, but I am saying that it might be a more satisfactory body to deal with the first person, than a body which can deal with the first price, but who are interested, as coalowner and coal miner, in getting as much as they can for the coal in the first price. The proposed body, on the other hand, will have to take into account certain things which the investigation committees need not take into account, such as the interests of the consumers of coal. They have also to take into account whether anything is contrary to the interests of any person affected by the scheme and to the public interests. When they have done that—

The Chairman: I may tell the hon. Member that these are the words which caused me a little thought when I was considering whether this Amendment was in order or not: but these committees considering the interests of the consumers are able to do so only in connection with a marketing scheme, and they do not go over the whole range of consumers.

Mr. Williams: I agree, but so far as public interest comes into the matter, the committee is able to do the various things mentioned in lines 28–31—or the Minister may do them—that is to say,
may by order make such Amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
may by order revoke the scheme;
in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order.
If we try to understand the new Schedule—which is not too easy because it is a matter of Amendment by reference, a substantial amount of matter being taken out of the old Bill and new matter put into the new Bill—it seems that these are powers more considerable than those which will be enjoyed by the committees of investigation. So far as that is the case, there appear to be matters of substance in this Amendment which call for support.

Mr. J. Griffiths: One of the complaints against the committees of investigation and their methods was that of delay. An assurance has been given that it will be remedied. May I ask the hon. Member whether the method of the committee of investigation or the method in the Amendment will be the quicker?

Mr. Williams: The method of the Amendment is likely to be quicker, for the obvious reason that everybody on the committee will be anxious to make a decision, whereas on the committees of investigation there will be at least two persons whose interest it will be to delay as long as possible.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Fleming: I will try to keep out of my mind the matters raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and keep to the first contract. In saying that, I am reminded of some correspondence which I have received from the Manchester Corporation in regard to first contracts. There is no doubt that they have ground for complaint from their point of view as to the rising cost of coal. I agree with the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that there is a great deal to be said about prices in days gone by, but that point would be out of order, so I will leave it there. In regard to the Amendment, the Committee should thank the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) because it gives us a chance of considering some alternative schemes to the scheme proposed in the Bill. To my mind, the Amendment is too narrow, because it will leave out entirely, as you have already ruled, Sir Dennis, the great bulk of the people whom I represent in the Withington Division. They are not utility companies, but are small householders, and they would not be affected.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now arguing against the Amendment because it is in order. I am afraid that he cannot develop the argument which he wants to develop, on what an Amendment which would have been out of order would have done.

Mr. Fleming: If you had gone a few words further, the Committee might have seen that the reason why I cannot support the Amendment is because it is too narrow. It affects only one type of con-


sumer, and as you have already rightly ruled, that is the first contractor or first purchaser, who might not be a consumer at all. That is why I advise the Committee not to support the Amendment, although I have great sympathy with this type of Amendment if it is wide enough. It might mislead the Committee into thinking that they were helping the great bulk of the people whom they represent. I have no great respect for what has happened in days gone by in the committees of investigation, but I certainly think that with the assurance of the Government and with the committees' reformed procedure, there will be a better opportunity than in the council of consumers proposed in the Amendment. That is why I do not propose to support the Amendment.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In addressing the Committee on this question, I feel like the Irishman who said: "Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?" I recognise that my knowledge on this question is exceedingly limited, and I had intended to wait until the Schedule was put to the Committee before raising the point I have in mind, but as it has already been raised on this Amendment, perhaps I should save the time of the Committee if I dealt with it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) has spoken of the Scottish position. There is no question, you will be glad to hear, Sir Dennis, of this matter being outside the rules of order, or that the Edinburgh Corporation is not first purchaser in buying from the colliery company, but the complaint which the Edinburgh Corporation has to make is of the service of the supply. They are not raising the question of price, in spite of the very considerable increase which they have to pay; they are raising the service, and the points to which they direct attention are three.
In the first place, they say that, in spite of any contract, they do not get the same quality of coal that they got before, and the specification which brought one type of coal in days gone by brings an entirely different and inferior type of coal at the present time—one which does not result in the same gas being obtained or the same thermal requirements. In the second place, they do not get regularity of supply, and when they have to deal

with the very large quantity with which they are concerned for the purposes of the corporation, it is very inconvenient for the quantities to be delivered with the complete irregularity that prevails at the present time. Over one month they will get a very large supply, and over the next month they will get hardly any supply at all. This means great difficulty in storage, and very considerable expense. Then, finally, there is this difficulty already mentioned with regard to the committees of investigation. I have brought this point forward now only in order to say that we on these benches are not going to support the Amendment, but I do ask that, in view of the very great inconvenience which is being caused to certain consumers like the Corporation of Edinburgh the right hon. Gentleman will go into the question carefully and see whether he can make such provisions that these committees of investigation shall be a real safeguard to the purchasers of coal and prevent the abuse which is springing up, and which the mineowners do not remedy by personal attention in the way that they used to do before this scheme came into operation.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill."

7.5 p.m.

Mr. A. Reed: Before we part with this Schedule I think it should be on record precisely where we have arrived, because when this Schedule was first under consideration it was supposed to be another great safeguard, but we now find—and I refer especially to the Minister's remark to-day that if the consumer has a grievance he has both the committee of investigation and the appeal tribunal to rely on—that the only matter the committee of investigation can look at is the first transaction in coal from the colliery: I understand that that is the only matter which can go to the appeal tribunal. We also know quite well that in many districts in this country no coal can be purchased from a colliery company by anybody except its agents or its associated companies, and therefore in actual fact this enormous concession which was supposed to be given in the Eighth Schedule is worth absolutely nothing. We have had it stated this afternoon that in South Wales, for instance, there has been only one case before the committee of investigation.


That is perfectly true, because those who are buying South Wales coal know that they cannot take a case to the committee of investigation and get it investigated. It will be the same with the appeal tribunal. I do urge upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines to consider this matter carefully. The public are beginning to realise that these safeguards which are supposed to be for their benefit are no safeguards at all. It is not only South Wales that is concerned, but other districts as well. In fact, there are only two districts in this country where a coal transaction can be investigated by the committee of investigation.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

CELLULOID DOLLS AND RATTLES, WEFT PILE VELVETS, LITHOPONE AND CARPETS.

7.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move,

CELLULOID DOLLS AND RATTLES.

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 11) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-ninth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."

We have usually found ourselves in the position of having to discuss these very necessary Import Duty Orders at a tolerably late hour, and I must say it is unusual and rather pleasant for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to find himself, for once in a way, with time on his hands and able to satisfy, so far as in him lies, the legitimate curiosity of Members of the House. I think, perhaps, it might be for the convenience of the House if we took the general discussion on the four Orders together, and possibly have any Divisions at the end of the discussion. I should

like to know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite feels on the subject, and whether you, Sir, would be good enough to give a ruling. I understand that on previous occasions we have generally discussed a crop of orders together and had the Divisions at the end.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I think, Sir, with respect to any ruling you may give, that if the discussion were of a general kind at the beginning you will realise that under this form of tax procedure only one question is put instead of six, and therefore we are deprived of some of our opportunities. I take it you would not prevent any Member who desired to raise any points as to a specific Duty, and nothing else, from raising those points when the Order is put to the House as a specific question.

Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House, and I should like to do what is most convenient.

Captain Wallace: I will proceed, if I may, to explain the object of the four Orders which are before the House. They are all alike in so far as they all impose minimum specific duties as a safeguard against competition by abnormally cheap imports from certain foreign countries, while leaving unchanged the ordinary ad valorem duties. There is one small exception in the case of the first Order, for the Order does increase the duty on certain parts of dolls from 15 to 25 per cent., but it is an extremely small exception. In two out of the four Orders—that is, the case of weft pile velvets and the case of carpets—there was already a minimum specific duty in force as an alternative to the ad valorem duty before these particular Orders came into operation, and the Order simply continues the same specific duty in the case of the weft pile velvet, or increases its amount in the case of carpets. Having said what I can on the general question relating to the four Orders, I should like to deal with celluloid dolls.

Mr. Benn: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman goes on I do not think anyone would grudge him the time if he explained in some detail what this Committee is inquiring about, what influences have been at work, what witnesses have been heard, and what is its style of procedure. We know nothing at all about any of these things.

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Member wishes to raise those point, then perhaps I had better make my speech first and I will answer at the end, but I am only here to-night to set before the House the specific case in favour of the Orders which are on the Paper.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot on these Orders discuss the whole procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the reasons why they came to their decisions.

Mr. Benn: I would draw your attention to the fact that these are specific instances of the operation of a certain machine, and we have not the least idea how that machine works. If the machine works and produces these results, are we entitled to ask where the Advisory Committee went for its information, what type of information it secured before these four specific Orders are made which are an example of its work?

Mr. Speaker: That would be equivalent to criticising the work of the Advisory Committee, which, after all, is a statutory body set up by this House.

Mr. Benn: Do I understand from your Ruling, Sir, that we are precluded from criticising the way in which taxes are decided? We are asked now to give only one single vote on a tax, but are we entitled to ask how the decision to impose the tax has been arrived at?

Mr. Speaker: The proper method would seem to be to criticise the tax as a tax, not to criticise the machinery of the Import Duties Advisory Committee which has been set up by this House.

Mr. Benn: I quite understand that the discretion under the Import Duties Act has been left to the Committee, but, at the same time, I submit with respect that we are entitled to ask how they have used that discretion in producing these results?

Mr. Graham White: The Import Duties Advisory Committee, in the course of their recommendations with regard to Order No. 11, refer to:
low-priced competition from a fresh source.
Would it not be in Order to inquire for further information on that point, in order that we may make up our minds?

Mr. Speaker: It will be quite in Order to discuss anything which arises out of the Orders.

Mr. T. Williams: The Import Duties Advisory Committee having reached certain conclusions, and those conclusions having been submitted in the form of a recommendation to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade then become responsible for any Motion on the subject that is brought before this House, and presumably they satisfy themselves that the recommendations are proper ones. Is it not quite in accordance with normal procedure that the Minister should give to the House the reasons why the recommendations have been offered, and the reasons why the Board of Trade have accepted them? Surely that should be the course to be followed.

Mr. Speaker: That would be in Order, but it is quite a different thing from criticising the actual work of the Committee.

Mr. Benn: May I ask who is responsible for these taxes being imposed? Is it the Advisory Committee, or is it the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is responsible, I assume that we are entitled to ask him how he came to his decision that the Orders were proper Orders, and whether he is satisfied that adequate inquiries were made?

Mr. Speaker: The Government take upon themselves the responsibility of accepting or otherwise the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but not of saying how the committee came to their decision.

Captain Wallace: I am going to try to explain to the House the case that has been put forward by the Import Duties Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade. The Government accept responsibility for putting forward these Orders, and I do not desire to withhold from the House one iota of the voluminous information that we have. The only thing that I hesitated to do, and I am glad to be supported in that by you, Mr. Speaker, was to enter upon a general discussion on the procedure of the committee.
The first Order, No. 11 of 1937, deals with the subject of celluloid dolls and rattles, and it applies to articles of this kind which contain more than 10 per cent. by weight of celluloid. These articles were previously subject to an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent., except in the case of parts of dolls other than


heads; and I think that, when the House realises the meticulous nature of these recommendations, it will understand that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have made exhaustive and careful researches into the matter. This particular Order imposes a minimum specific duty of 2s. 6d. per pound on dolls which exceed 7¼ inches in length, and of 1s. 6d. per pound on rattles. The reason for differentiating between a doll which is less and a doll which is more than 7¼ inches in length is that the smaller doll is really in an entirely different category, being used, I understand, very largely in the manufacturing confectionery trade. It may be said to be more a cake decoration than a toy.
Celluloid rattles of the better quality have been, as I am sure the House will be pleased to hear, manufactured for some time in this country, but the production of celluloid dolls has only been developed under the shelter of a tariff. During the last three or four years this trade, which has been built up under the tariff, giving work and wages to a fair number of people, has experienced competition from low-priced imports of celluloid dolls and rattles from Japan—

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us, from his voluminous information, how many people are employed in this trade, how many firms are engaged in it, the number of people they employ, and their wages?

Captain Wallace: I think that there are two large firms engaged in this work. The wages of the employés are regulated by ordinary wage agreements, and I do not think it has ever been suggested in this House that, because a particular industry, after making its case to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, secures a measure of protection in the general interest of the country, special arrangements should be made for its wages. As a matter of fact, the toy trade is one of those industries which have Trade Boards.
These low-priced imports have come from what the Import Duties Advisory Committee described as a fresh source. It is the custom of the Import Duties Advisory Committee not to mention countries by name, but I am not obliged to observe the same reticence, and I have no hesitation in telling the House that these particular imports come from Japan.

The Import Duties Advisory Committee have satisfied themselves and have satisfied my right hon. Friend that, if the industry in this country is to maintain a fair share of the trade at reasonable prices—and nobody, I imagine, wants celluloid dolls manufactured in this country to be sold at abnormally low prices—some further protection is necessary. The Order proposing a minimum specific duty will only affect the cheaper kinds of goods, leaving the best quality of goods unaffected; and the Import Duties Advisory Committee have satisfied themselves that this Order is not likely to have any material effect on retail prices. The fact of the matter is that these particular kinds of goods are usually sold at a fixed price, such as 3d., 6d., or 1s., and the only result, if any, of the imposition of these minimum specific duties will be, perhaps, that the doll or the rattle may be slightly thinner or smaller. So much for the first of the Orders—

Mr. Mathers: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman passes from the first Order, may I ask him one question? He has used more than once the expression "better quality." What exactly does he mean by "better quality"? Does he mean non-inflammable celluloid? The question of inflammability is one which, I am sure, is causing great anxiety to a committee which is now considering this subject with a view to protecting babies from the dangers attaching to these toys.

Captain Wallace: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. What I mean by "better quality" is better quality in the ordinary acceptance of the term—dolls of better design and more attractive. As far as safety is concerned, the hon. Gentleman has given the answer to his own question, namely, that the dangers resulting from the use, not only of celluloid toys, but of other articles made of celluloid, are at the moment under the consideration of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Office, and it is obviously impossible for the House in this Order to try to anticipate the report of that committee.
The next Order, No. 12 of 1937, renews, for a period of one year only, that is to say, for the year 1938, the minimum specific duty of 10d. per square yard on cut weft pile fabrics. These fabrics are light cotton velveteens, which are largely used as dress material and for


cheap upholstery. I understand that they are also employed in the manufacture of soft toys and in the lining of fancy boxes, such as spectacle cases and things of that kind. The production of this particular material is centred mainly in the Oldham and Preston districts. The duty, which has a very high ad valorem incidence, was imposed in July, 1936, with the object of giving the home industry some protection against low-priced Japanese imports. It was imposed for a temporary period of 18 months, that is to say, from July, 1936, until the end of last year, and the committee, in recommending the temporary duty, suggested that the situation should be reconsidered later in relation to the possibility of improving the competitive power of the British industry under the shelter of a tariff.
Since the duty was imposed, imports from Japan have been at a very low level, and the output of the industry has expanded considerably, providing work and wages for more people. The committee say in their report that prices have been reasonable, and, what is equally important, that appreciable progress has been made in co-operation between the various sections of the industry which make this particular material. On the other hand, there is evidence available to the committee that supplies of cheap Japanese material, which were kept out by the Order of July, 1936, are still available at prices very little higher than those of 1936, and for these reasons the committee consider it desirable that this industry should have one more year's protection. [Interruption.] The whole point, as I understand it, of this procedure was that the imposition of the specific duty should be carried out by a body which was not susceptible to the process which is known as "lobbying."

Mr. Benn: What is the procedure to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers?

Captain Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the procedure is; it has been discussed many times in this House. The Board of Trade are asking the House to accept this recommendation of the committee that the protection be continued for another 12 months that is until the end of the present year. We hope that this renewal

of the duty will stimulate the industry to further efforts in the direction of cooperation, and that it may not, perhaps, be necessary to continue it after the end of the year.

Mr. R. Acland: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say roughly what the duty of 10d. a square yard amounts to as a percentage?

Captain Wallace: I think the hon. Gentleman had better make his speech, and I will answer all these questions later.

Mr. Acland: But this is information which, I submit, ought to be given now, and which has not yet been given. Some of us would like to have it for the purpose of making our speeches.

Captain Wallace: I will deal with that later. It is difficult to carry all these things in one's head. I pass on now to the subject of lithopone, which is a pigment used mainly in the manufacture of paint and linoleum. It is composed of zinc sulphide and barium sulphate. The proposal is to impose a specific duty of £3 5s. a ton, as an alternative to the existing duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem. The United Kingdom production of this material is in the hands of three firms, the principal two of which are located in Lancashire. The whole industry has developed appreciably since the introduction of tariffs, like many other industries which have been subjected to this beneficial process, and a substantial export trade has been built up.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say anything about the exports of paint, of which this is a most important constituent?

Captain Wallace: I will deal with that in a moment. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have told us in the White Paper that it is possible that in due course an international agreement will be concluded between the chief European producers and that, in that event, the duty might be reduced.
I now come to the last, and I think the most important, Order, which proposes to impose a duty on machine-made carpets. The general rate of duty on carpets is 20 per cent. ad valorem, and in 1933 a specific duty of 9d. per square yard was imposed, in order to help British producers to secure a greater share of the


market in cheap carpets, and, in particular, of cheap stair carpets. The present Order applies to wool, cotton, hair or jute carpets, which were previously subject to 20 per cent. ad valorem or 9d. per square yard, whichever was the greater. The minimum specific duty is now increased from 9d. to 1s. [Interruption.] I think the House will realise that it would be simpler for us to make our own speeches. The object of the Order is to give the British manufacturer further protection against imports of cheap Wilton stair carpets, and the effect will be that the consumer who buys foreign stair carpet will pay another 1½d. per linear yard of 18-inch material.
The specific duty of 9d., which we are going to increase to 1s., was imposed in February, 1933, and, with the assistance of this duty, production expanded substantially, until, by the end of 1936, British manufacturers of cheap stair carpeting were supplying about one-third of the market. Since then prices of raw materials have risen considerably. I imagine that nobody who has listened to the Debates on the larger question of world economic recovery will regret that some of these raw materials have returned higher prices to the producers; but, in face of this rise in the cost of raw materials, the British manufacturers advanced the price of their carpets, and they then found themselves being undercut by cheap imports from the Continent. The prices of Continental carpets have risen to some extent, but the rise is not so great as that of the cost of raw materials to British manufacturers. Imports have risen very heavily in volume. Imports of Brussels and Wilton carpets, for instance, rose from 1,280,000 square yards in 1936 to 1,628,000 square yards in 1937, the latter figure being double the volume of imports in 1933, when the specific duty of 9d. per square yard was imposed. In these circumstances, I do not think that the House will be surprised that the Import Duties Advisory Committee reached the conclusion that British manufacturers who had entered this section of the industry and had put down modern plant should be given further protection.
The main purpose of the Order is to give further protection to British manufacturers of cheap woollen stair carpets, but it would be impracticable to single out such carpets for separate treatment. For

one thing, stair carpets cannot always be distinguished from other carpets in lengths; for another, carpets are sometimes made of mixed material, and it would not be possible for Customs officers to distinguish between carpets of wool and part wool. Moreover, the general considerations leading to the necessity of an increase in the specific duty on stair carpet apply also, though not, perhaps, in the same degree, to other kinds of cheap carpet. Therefore, the new duty applies to all forms of cheap carpet. These are more or less competitive one with another and the new duty does not affect carpets prices at 5s. a square yard or over. The need for adequate protection in the carpet industry has recently become very acute, because there has been a sharp rise in unemployment in the industry. It is estimated that last July 30,000 people were employed in the industry in this country and that last month that number had fallen to 25,000, while the percentage of persons registered as unemployed in the industry has risen from 4.3 per cent. in June, 1937, to 22.7 per cent. last month.
The Order is concerned, as I have said, with carpets at the cheap end of the trade. During part of 1936, the United Kingdom output was sold at bare cost of production. Now that additional protection has been given, I hope the industry will be able to resume working at a small profit, because I am not one of those who believe that any industry can go on for long working without profit. I apologise for the time during which I have had to address the House. It has been extended, perhaps, by questions, and I shall listen with respectful interest to the comments of other hon. Members on these four Orders, and I shall do my best, if the House will give me leave, to reply to specific points. I might, in order to curtail some of the proceedings, warn the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I do not intend to be drawn into a discussion as to the functions of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Benn: There is one thing on which I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that is on bringing these Orders at a reasonable hour. I feel that every time that these new taxes are introduced our attention is called to the total


failure of the Government to make any response to the international efforts to free international trade from tariff barriers. Whether it is the League of Nations, some proposal by Mr. Cordell Hull, the World Economic Conference, or M. van Zeeland's report, everybody agrees that something should be done to get rid of tariff barriers, and the only reply is another spate of these little Orders, proposed. by the secret tariff advisory committee, and sponsored by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. With an ordinary tax you have six opportunities of cross-examining the Government. On these Orders the only way is by asking questions, and appearing, perhaps, discourteous by interjecting questions during the speeches of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in order that we may get information. The steady decline in the authority of the House of Commons over finance is not finished yet. I suppose we shall see the day when the rate of Income Tax or the National Defence Contribution will be decided by some committee and the House will be asked to raise a duty in the middle of the night by a simple resolution. From the days when Mr. Gibson Bowles protested against the collection of a duty by the Customs 10 days in advance of the passage of the Finance Bill, there has been a long decline in the control of the House of Commons over financial procedure.
These Orders are in direct conflict with the view of everybody who is trying to set the world right economically. What is the reason that these Orders are introduced and that the Government pursue this policy? The reason is perfectly simple. The Government are in the hands of vested interests who will not permit them to make a reduction which would affect their profit-making capacity. At every turn, whether it is an American trade treaty or not, when the Government, usually the Foreign Office, seem to be considering these matters, a warning note comes from somebody on the back benches and out comes the Order. These Orders, some of which are, incidentally, made in respect of imports from M. van Zeeland's own country, indicate that as far as the van Zeeland report, or any other report is concerned, nothing whatever is to be done. The control of the manufacturers over the tariffs of this country, as illustrated in these Orders,

was never better put than by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence when, attending a trade function, he said:
The association has shown great public spirit and has consented to the admission of such foreign machines as are necessary to rearmament.
One of the greatest Ministers in the Government is compelled to go and make servile speeches to manufacturers' associations thanking them for permitting machinery to be introduced into this country which he describes as being necessary for rearmament. On these four Duties we are entitled to ask the Minister—we must not blame the Civil Service—from what source has information been secured? When people come along and ask for favours in the way of tariffs, are we not entitled to ask in turn from others connected with the industry what conditions prevail in the industry? When a specific railway company comes here and wants to extend its line and the Government are asked to grant a private Bill permitting the company to take more powers than it has ordinarily got, what happens? If the workers in the industry are not satisfied, they oppose the private Bill—we hear it every day at a quarter-to-three in this House—and then, behind the scenes, adjustment is made and pressure of Parliament is brought to bear upon the company which is requiring public favour, to put its house in order. If that is proper in the case of a railway Bill, why should not the committee make some inquiries as to the condition of the workers in these industries which are going to get a favour at the expense of the consumers, and usually the poorest consumers of all? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said something to-night which, I hope, will be made widely known. He said that he had never yet heard that the acceptance of a tariff by an industry laid upon it any responsibility in reference to the conditions.

Captain Wallace: I said that the acceptance of the tariff did not make any special responsibility and did not, in fact, differentiate between the responsibility of a tariff-protected industry and the responsibility of other industries under the bargaining system of employers and employed in this country.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman puts it very gracefully. An industry comes along and asks for a tariff.


For what purpose? In order to make more profits at the expense of the consumer. Is not the committee or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bound to ask, "Are you paying fair wages and providing decent conditions in the industry?" The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was not aware that such an industry has any special responsibility of this kind. Working people are not asked to join in this tariff exploitation in the hope of sharing the booty. They will not share in it, and that is clear from what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many firms have made application for the duty on carpets? Has a mass of firms come forward and asked for a duty on cheap carpets? I do not know whether he can at once give the information from his voluminous sources.

Captain Wallace: I think that it is better to wait until the end.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that he is depriving us of the opportunity we ought to have, on taxation matters, of getting information? We shall have to ask the question again on the carpet order, if we have not had a reply in the meantime. Our case is that, if the State is to take responsibility, through the Advisory Committee, of granting favours at the expense of the consumer, then it should also be responsible for the state of the industry itself. That view receives support from one of the reports of the Advisory Committee. In the matter of iron and steel, they said:
The State cannot divest itself of responsibility as to the conduct of the protected industry so far-reaching in its character.
Therefore, the very point that I am making, and which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman repudiates, that the demand for a tariff lays upon the industry some obligation in respect of its workpeople, has been admitted in one of the reports made by the Advisory Committee itself. There are one or two other small points that I wish to make in these general remarks, and then an hon. Friend has a special point to raise about the duty. It is necessary that the Government should tell us what this specific duty amounts to ad valorem. When we raise the question of the American trade treaty

and ask, what are you going to do to secure something which will be of the highest political advantage, namely, good commercial understanding we are always told to look at their rate of duty compared with our rate of duty, and we get the usual pressure from the back benches opposite that nothing should be done. In all these duties there is the common feature that the ad valorem duty is the one which lies more heavily on the cheaper type of article. It is the fact in the case of lithopone. The specific duty amounts to far more than the ad valorem duty, but because the specific duty is stated at so much per ton that fact is concealed.
I suppose, in the case of carpets, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said was 5s. a yard, there is nothing in the duty. People who live in small houses cannot afford to pay 5s. a yard more for carpet. In a small council house because of this particular duty a young bride will have to pay an additional amount on her carpets. Altogether she will be paying about 15s. in taxes to carpet the little stairway that leads from the parlour to the bedroom, and something like £1 to carpet the small room which is allowed under the Government's housing provisions.
Further remarks must be reserved and will more properly come on the individual duty. It is obvious that we must get some of the information that we require. We must have information about the wages paid in these industries. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really must tell us whether the wages and conditions are satisfactory. Take the case of celluloid dolls. He spoke as though this was a vast industry. I am told that it is a small industry. He says that two applications were made, but I was told that only one manufacturer had applied. Who are employed in the industry? Are they girls? What wages do they receive? Is there are guarantee that they must be decently paid? The lithopone duty carries certain characteristics of its own and questions upon it had better be reserved until that particular Order is reached. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will take advantage of every opportunity which this very limited and restricted form of Debate provides in order to give us some of the information for which we are asking in these questions.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: I would like to support almost everything which the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has said. We join with him in thanking the Government for the one favour of giving the House an opportunity of a Debate on these duties at an hour when we can carry on the discussion. These duties become more and more important, and, on the whole, more and more objectionable. When these duties were imposed in 1932 with a great flourish of trumpets, the one thing that was held out to us was that they were imposed with a view to bringing tariffs down. As year after year goes by we find no general move made in that direction, and when there are negotiations from which one might hope for results of the highest political importance, all the interests put their heads together to press that their particular part of the industrial field should be unaffected by the reduction. We get, month after month, a steady trickle of increased duties without, as the right hon. Gentleman has so rightly said, the introduction of any sort or sense of responsibility on the part of the industrialists who receive these favours that they will give the wages or conditions that they should give.
The difficulty under which we labour is, that in these recommendations the most slender reasons are given for the increases. We are told in respect of one that raw materials have increased in price, but we are not told by how much and what proportion the cost of raw material bears to other costs. We are in the position of having to ask our questions at the very end. We receive the information, and we are compelled immediately to vote without being put into a position to make any use at all of our arguments. It puts us in very considerable difficulties. These duties coming at this time, seem to be even more objectionable than any that have been before the House previously. Are we not at this moment considering the van Zeeland report, which, right in the forefront, declares that import duties, at any rate, ought not to be raised, and yet, while it is being considered, we are actually, in two of these Orders, increasing duties against M. van Zeeland's own country, without, I think, having heard any evidence from the Minister that there has been any reduction in British production

of these things. Would it be too much to ask the Minister, so as to assist us, that, in moving the later Orders, he should, before we speak, give us the figures for the years from whatever date the duty was imposed of British production and of British exports of the articles upon which we are asked to impose a duty. If he can give us that information in moving the remaining Orders, it would put us in a better position to see whether any case is made out. If there has not been a heavy falling off in exports, then, at this time, with the van Zeeland report pending, it would have been advisable to postpone the application of these duties, at any rate until the Government and other governments have made up their minds on that report.
There are rather peculiar circumstances attaching to the particular import duty on celluloid dolls which is now before the House. In the ordinary way this is a duty on a cheaper priced article which is used among the poorer members of the community which, one would think, would encourage those instincts of maternity which is the object of another part of the Government's policy to promote. Attention has been drawn to the fact that foreigners by the sale of these articles in this country acquire purchasing power which they can use only in order to purchase British goods, and, therefore, give employment to those engaged in our export trade. In this particular case, when we are informed that the nation concerned is Japan, we are bound to notice that the purchases which Japan desires to make in this country are armaments. Although perhaps an academic case might be made out in favour of demanding a boycott of Japanese goods and at the same time voting against a tariff on Japanese goods, yet, looking at the matter as practical men, it seems to us on these benches to be inconsistent to demand the complete boycott of Japanese goods and at the same time vote against a particular tariff on certain Japanese goods. For that special reason, without in any way sacrificing one word or line of our case, we shall not vote against this duty, although we hope to be able to vote against all the rest.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Wise: I was extraordinarily interested in the description which the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland)


gave of his party as practical men. His description of practicality seemed to cloak political dishonesty so unreasonably as to be almost astonishing. He said that all their sacred principles of Free Trade are to go in one particular case because goods come from a certain country. I hope he realises the inconsistency of the attitude, which, presumably, is taken up by hon. Members above the Gangway, who want to support an anti-Japanese boycott by reducing the duties on Japanese goods. He must realise the argument that might be used on the hustings.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member is mistaken. We take every means of reducing Japanese exchange, and we are not proposing to divide on this Order for that reason. I would point out that when a docker will not handle Japanese goods he is called a Communist, but when a trader wants an import duty in order to make extra percentage on those goods, he is called a patriot.

Mr. Wise: The right hon. Member has made it clear that in the case of his party no case of principle is involved on this question of duty. It is purely an ad hoc consideration of any specific duty. In other words, the doctrine of Free Trade has been abandoned by the Labour party, and the country will be delighted to hear it. I should like to deal with several points that were made by the right hon. Gentleman. He complained very bitterly of the procedure adopted in regard to these import duty Orders, and said that we might expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming along to announce that the rate of Income Tax or of the National Defence Contribution had been fixed behind the scenes by a Treasury committee and that this House would have no power to discuss it. Has he ever read one of the text books of his party: "The First Worker's Government," with a preface by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is now received into favour on the benches opposite, where exactly that principle is laid down as the only possible procedure under which Socialist finance could be got through the House of Commons. Either the party opposite must approve of this procedure, or alternatively abandon the idea of Socialism in our time.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member must not forget that it is one thing for a

member of the community to write a book, but the Government were the people who were creating the precedent referred to in the book.

Mr. Wise: It is one of the text books of the party opposite, written by one of the brightest of their intelligentsia, a man to whom, I am sure, they look up as one of their prophets. I should like to take up one further point made by the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of the strong objection that the House had to the procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. He knows the procedure of the committee perfectly well. It was laid down in a Resolution of the House when the committee was set up. The procedure is perfectly simple. Every opportunity is given to any affected purchaser to represent his case to the committee, and every single increase applied for by a manufacturer has to be justified by long and careful inquiry.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member does not surely mean that the consumers who buy these goods have a locus before the committee?

Mr. Wise: The consumers of the goods are the people who have to purchase them for sale. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "] Certainly. The price which they can charge to the public is entirely dependent upon public demand and on what the public would pay for their article. Their margin of profit does not depend on what they think they ought to get from the purchaser for a celluloid doll, but what the British public think a celluloid doll is worth. That is one of the most simple standards of value that we know in this country.
The attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to link up tariff procedure with wages agreements in industry was most astonishing. Three of the industries concerned in these Orders are under the jurisdiction of trade boards. With regard to the lithopone industry, I am not certain how the wages regulations are enforced, but I should imagine that this particular article is produced by Imperial Chemical Industries, in which case there is trade union representation to the firm. If the industries under the trade boards are sweated, it is the fault of the representatives of the workers for not putting their case properly, and it is time that hon. Members opposite represented to their party, which professes to represent


the interests of the workers, that they should be properly represented. A trade board affords an opportunity of inquiry into wage conditions.
There is no excuse for linking up the tariff system and agreements on wages. The living wage rate does not depend on the price for which you can sell your goods. The criterion should be, on what can the workmen live? The question of a tariff is the question whether you can sell your goods at a profit or not. The arguments on the two subjects ought to be kept separate. It would be a most dangerous precedent if we linked the two together. If we connect wages rates with tariffs we shall find, as we have found in connection with other Measures discussed by the House, an insistent demand by the workmen for higher and higher tariffs, just as we have had an insistent demand by the coalowners for higher and higher prices for coal.

8.9 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: As this discussion has ranged over the four Orders, I should like to say a few words on the Order dealing with carpets. I recently put forward the case of the difficulties of certain industries, especially the jute industry, and the carpet industry which is so closely linked with it. I pointed out that not only wool carpets, but particularly jute carpets, had been going through very difficult times because the duty that was imposed on imported carpets was not sufficient to meet the rise in the cost of our raw materials. I am sorry that my hon. Friend who shares with me the representation of Dundee (Mr. Foot) is not in his place, because he could perhaps have assured hon. Members opposite better than I can of the difficulties experienced by that trade in Dundee before the original duty was put on. He and I know that the influx of goods from the Continent, carpets, particularly jute carpets, made it impossible for us to carry on. The duty did help the industry, but difficulties have occurred again lately and an application has been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
I do not think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have really considered the procedure of the committee if they think that it is not possible for objections to be raised. The fact is widely advertised when an application has been made

for a duty, and objections have beep made in many cases. The right hon. Member opposite spoke of the price of carpets. He mentioned the difficulty that anyone would have in carpeting a staircase or a room, and he mentioned certain figures. I do not know whether this is the right place in which to sell goods from one's own constituency, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that even when this duty has been imposed if he will come to me for assistance I shall be able to show him where good and cheaper carpets can be obtained.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I want to address myself to the first Order, which I oppose on a number of grounds, some of which have already been stated. We have had little information as to why this Order is before the House. We are entitled to know who made the application, the nature of the application, the volume of production concerned, the capital involved, the extent of imports of these particular goods, the fluctuations in the business to justify the application, the profits now being made, the capitalisation of the firms and the effects of competition. All these considerations are relevant to these particular articles. Without this information it is very difficult for the House to form a judgment on the matter. I suppose it is the attitude of the Front Bench opposite to assume that they have merely to ask for an Order and, without vouchsafing information, they can get the Order through because of their majority. The House is entitled to more information in regard to this question of celluloid dolls and rattles.
As to the procedure of the committee, I would point out that it seldom happens that parties other than the firms concerned are heard before the Advisory Committee. It would be stupid for us to imagine that before a decision has been arrived at all sides of the question have been gone into with great care by the committee. What are the conditions operating in this celluloid toy industry? What number of people are employed and what are their working conditions? I put the point because reference has been made to the operation of trade boards. The mere fact that a trade board operates in an industry is no real answer that the working conditions are of a substantially good standard. It should be remembered


that in determining wages and conditions under trade boards consideration has to be given to the least efficient firms concerned. Obviously trade boards cannot fix wages and determine conditions which will drive out of industry even the firms which are the least efficiently organised.

Miss Horsbrugh: Is not that just the reason why this tariff would help this trade? There would be more chance of selling the goods and therefore the trade board could see that fair wages were paid.

Mr. Creech Jones: The interruption is not relevant. I am replying to a statement that we must assume that in an industry under a trade board the conditions are good, and I am pointing out that merely because a trade board operates it does not necessarily mean that conditions are of a satisfactory standard, because too often the conditions and wage rates are determined with regard to the least efficient firm operating, and that to keep these firms in the business a rate is fixed which they can pay. I put the point that we are entitled to know, so far as the first Order is concerned, not only the number of people employed and the conditions and hours of work but also that any gain coming from any efficiency as a result of the operation of protection passes to the workers concerned. I submit that the workers case has not been considered by the committee at all.
I am not opposing this Order on the ground of the necessity of freer trade. I take the view that the policy which the Government have pursued of economic nationalism is not in the long run beneficial to the trade and commerce of the country, but rather operates in the reverse direction. It is obvious in the distressed areas, in shipping and transport, that economic nationalism is detrimental to the best interests of the country. Nor am I opposing it on the ground that the whole tendency of tariffs is to drive up the cost of living. That can be debated at another time, but I submit that in this case you are trying to create what is an entirely artificial and uneconomic industry which can never support itself unless it is protected behind tariff walls. I gather that there is no reason why this industry should be fostered for any national purpose; no national end is being served. It is pointed out in the White Paper that:
Following the introduction of the tariff, the production of celluloid dolls was com-

menced in this country and considerable sums were expended on the necessary plant.
But that was not sufficient and a further tariff was necessary—
They were, however, faced with low priced competition from a fresh source, and notwithstanding successive efforts to cheapen production, the home manufacturers have been forced, particularly in the case of the cheap medium-sized doll, to reduce their prices to the wholesaler to uneconomic levels in order to retain a foothold in the trade. Attempts to secure trade by the production of novelty lines have met with a limited success, but such goods are speedily imitated by the foreign manufacturer.
The more these manufacturers squeal the more helpful to them the Government become. This again is another example of the magnificence, the dignity and the self-sufficiency of capitalist industry. It survives because the State is there to bolster it up, and the reason for the maintenance of this indutry as given in the White Paper, is that it should have "a fair share of the trade so that a reasonable margin of profit shall be available to the manufacturers." It has been said that the duty will help to keep out Japanese goods. I did not know until the present moment that the Government favoured anything like a Japanese boycott. If they do, let them be frank about it and we shall be able to shape our course accordingly. I suggest that quite apart from the question of keeping out Japanese goods there is another serious aspect so far as celluloid is concerned. Here you have the Government trying to establish a new business in the country, one which I submit ought not to be encouraged. At the moment when the Home Office Departmental Committee is inquiring as to the suitability of this trade, we are asked by this Order to provide fresh facilities in order that the industry shall establish itself behind a tariff wall.
I confess that when I saw the Order I was amazed, after all the propaganda that has gone on during the last year or so, the campaign in "children's magazine," against the manufacture and sale in this country of toys made with celluloid. Just when the Home Office is going into this matter, when the whole question is in suspense, we are asked to pass an Order which is deliberately designed to increase the production of these particular articles. We are told that there is a large demand in the children's toy trade for the cheaper kind of dolls and rattles made with celluloid and in the White Paper it says:


We are satisfied that a further measure of protection, especially in regard to the cheap and medium qualities of these goods, is required to enable the industry to secure and maintain a fair share of the trade at prices which would yield a reasonable margin of profit.
I ask the House to note the words "to secure and maintain" a fair share of this trade just at a moment when the Home Office may be making a recommendation that the trade should be suppressed. The purpose for maintaining this dangerous trade is that a reasonable margin of profit shall be available to a limited number of manufacturers. What is the hurry? Why at this particular moment should we be asked to pass this Order? Let me remind the House of what has actually happened during the last year or two by allowing children to have these toys in their hands. Let me refer by way of illustration to a few tragic cases which in the last few months have been brought to the notice of hon. Members, of accidents arising to children being allowed to play with celluloid toys. On 16th January, 1937,
Valerie Jones died in Bootle General Hospital from burns caused by a celluloid rattle.
On 13th February, 1937, I read:
The latest tragedy of a celluloid doll is the death of little Doris May Spencer of Battersea. She had just passed her first birthday and had been given a doll to play with. Her mother found her with her doll on fire, and Doris was burnt to death. The coroner said he hoped the regulations for the sale of celluloid dolls will be tightened.
On 24th July, 1937, a cigarette spark falling on a celluloid rattle set fire to a perambulator at Peterborough, a baby escaping with a badly burned elbow.
On 25th September, 1937, little two-year-old Phyllis Reynolds, of Centre Street, Bolton, was badly scalded owing to fat spluttering from a pan on the fire, and setting fire to a celluloid doll she was nursing. The doll blazed up so fiercely that not only was the little one's leg burned and her face scorched, but the hearthrug was set blazing. Happily the mother was close by and able to summon aid in time.
On 1st January, 1938, Ann Wise, 14 months old, was playing in front of the fire with her celluloid doll when the doll burst into flames, and the child paid for her toy with her life. In the same week, a child was playing with a celluloid toy in a house in Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, when the toy caught fire and within ten minutes flames had shot up from the basement and were half way across the street. Forty firemen were soon on the scene, and the fire was put out without loss of life.

On 8th January, a baby throwing a celluloid toy on the fire brought the fire brigade to a house at Smethwick, near Birmingham, and the fire was put out. In the same week, a patient at Whittingham Mental Hospital, near Preston, was discovered burnt to death in a linen room, clutching a celluloid doll which was partly burned.
I submit that we ought not to pass an Order which will allow this industry to entrench itself behind a tariff wall. By passing this Order, we should virtually give this industry a new lease of life. That is the purpose stated in the White Paper. I submit that not only ought we not to give these manufacturers the protection of a tariff, but that we ought to abolish the trade altogether, and to prevent this particular sort of toy from being available to children. On these grounds, I oppose the Order, and I hope that the Government will think again before asking the House to endorse it.

8.28 p.m.

Captain Wallace: In replying to the points that have been raised on these Orders, I would like, in the first place, to address myself to the speech made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). I am sure that all hon. Members heard with sympathy and regret the tragic incidents which he read to us, but the point I wish to make—and it was only my extreme reluctance to interrupt on a point or Order which induced me not to make it earlier—is that the question of whether or not the use of celluloid toys and dolls should be prohibited in this country has nothing to do with the Order. If the Order were not passed, all that would happen would be that there would be a flood of foreign toys. There would be no sense in inflicting damage, possibly beyond repair, on the English industry if these toys were not prevented from coming into the country. There is no difference between a child being burnt by a foreign doll or by an English one. For that reason, I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that his point has nothing to do with the Order.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May we not recommend that all these dolls should be prohibited?

Captain Wallace: Not while we are discussing this Order.

Mr. Creech Jones: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the White Paper, he will see that it says deliberately


that the purpose of the order is to maintain and secure the industry in this country. It is stated that as previous tariffs have not been sufficient, a further tariff is to be imposed to make the industry safe.

Captain Wallace: I do not think the hon. Member has appreciated that the Order is being made for the purpose of enabling the British industry to supply a larger portion of the total demand for celluloid dolls, but that it will neither increase nor diminish that total demand. The object is to divert some of the demand from imports of cheap foreign dolls to manufacture in this country and to give this comparatively infant industry, in every sense of the word, a better chance.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is it not a fact that, should the Home Office come to the conclusion that this trade ought to be restricted, its task will be all the more difficult if, in the meantime, the industry has been strengthened and allowed to entrench itself behind a tariff?

Captain Wallace: I do not accept that view. The Home Office departmental committee is inquiring into the question of whether certain goods are dangerous to the infant population. If the departmental committee comes to the conclusion that that is the case, I am certain that neither this Government, nor any Government of hon. Members opposite, will allow itself to be deflected from accepting the report of the committee by considerations of whether the industry is a home industry or whether it is principally a question of imports. With regard to the celluloid doll industry, I understand that about 150 workers are employed in it, and that they come under a trade board, and receive the wages which that board has laid down. I regret that it is not possible for me to give the figures of exports and production in the case of these dolls or in the case of rattles, and the reason I cannot do so is that the figures that have been given to the Import Duties Advisory Committee are confidential.
Before proceeding further, I will deal with a rather more general question which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that is to say, the accusation that the inquiries on which Orders are based are some kind of secret, hole-in-the-corner business in which people who might have an interest in opposing the Orders do not

get a chance to be represented. There is a very simple answer to that accusation. Every application that is made to the committee, either by a single firm or a group of firms, or, as in the case of carpets, by the federation of the industry, is advertised. Not only are representations from people who are likely to be opposed to the Order admissible, but they are indeed, where possible, invited and sought. As I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House are well aware, the Imports Duties Advisory Committee exist to get at the truth. They do not have a bias with regard either to putting on or taking off tariffs. Every care is taken to see that the committee arrive at a correct appreciation of the situation. In the case of carpets, the importing interests were given a copy of the applicant's case, and were asked what objections they had. I do not think it is the slightest exaggeration to say that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, ever since they have been functioning, have, to use a Foreign Office phrase, left no stone unturned and no avenue unexplored in order to secure representations from people who think they may be adversely affected. After all, the Import Duties Advisory Committee have pride in their work, just as the Board of Trade have. If they proceeded to make a large number of these recommendations which subsequently turned out to have been made on the basis of insufficient information, or to have been attended with disastrous results to the trade and industry of this country, the odium would come back to them.

Miss Wilkinson: It has.

Captain Wallace: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say that has not been the case. I was asked as to the incidence on average values of the specific duties proposed in these Orders. The specific duty of dolls varies according to size and quality, but it would not be unfair to describe it as between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. The specific duty on lithopone represents an average of 25 per cent. The duty on weft pile velvets varies between 30 per cent. and 100 per cent., and, of course, it is Japanese velveteen which would come under the 100 per cent. On carpets, the duty is approximately 30 per cent.
I wish once again to make clear the position of the Government on this question of wages. I am certain that the right


hon. Gentleman opposite did not wish to misrepresent me; anyone who has known him for long in this House would not think that for a moment. But it must be said that it is just as much the duty of employers in industries which are not at any particular moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) said, enjoying the advantages of the tariff as of any other employers to give good wages and decent conditions. It is as much their duty to make agreements with the trade unions, which exist in large numbers in this country and which, as a glance at the benches opposite will reveal, are extremely well represented.

Mr. Benn: My point was whether it was the practice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to satisfy themselves that decent wages were paid in an industry before they granted a duty.

Captain Wallace: Without being able to speak otherwise that indirectly for the Import Duties Advisory Committee think the answer is certainly in the affirmative. I cannot imagine that a responsible body like that committee would fail to take those matters into consideration.

Mr. Benn: Where do they get the information?

Captain Wallace: There are many ways and means of getting it. At the Board of Trade and at the Ministry of Labour there is a great deal of information, and the Import Duties Committee does not hesitate to come down on Government Departments which can supply them with that information.

Mr. Creech Jones: Do we understand that the right hon. and gallant Member will give instructions to the committee or will let it be known to the committee that, in future, when they are considering these Orders, inquiry should be made into the wages and conditions of employment in the industries concerned?

Captain Wallace: If I started to give instructions to the committee as to their procedure I should be told, no doubt politely but very firmly, exactly where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade got off in this matter.

Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that this House which

is imposing this tax is not competent, and that the Minister with a majority behind him is not competent to lay down the conditions under which that tax shall operate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I understand that the House has already laid them down, and I do not see that this is an occasion on which the House can discuss conditions which were made on the appointment of this committee.

Mr. Benn: I fancy that a reference to the Act will show that discretion was left to the committee in this matter but I submit that no such thing can exist—that you cannot leave a discretion of this kind to civil servants, and that the responsibility must be borne by the Minister who is bound to answer us, when we ask whether these things are proper or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that when the House gave the Import Duties Committee the right to use its discretion the House has done with the matter, and must leave the committee to exercise that discretion.

Mr. Benn: But the Minister is responsible.

Mr. T. Williams: While the House has given definite powers to the committee, surely the maximum that the committee can do is to make a recommendation to the Treasury. From that moment responsibility must fall upon the Treasury for bringing the Order before the House or otherwise. The duty imposed on the committee is concluded once its recommendations is made to the Treasury, and when the Order is brought before the House it becomes the duty of the Minister in charge to answer to the House for the terms and conditions and propriety of the Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member's statement of the position may be absolutely correct from beginning to end, but I do not see that it in any way conflicts with the Ruling that I have given on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Benn: When I made that point I asked the Minister whether he accepted responsibility for the way in which the committee had dealt with the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is another matter. The Minister is responsible for the Order, but not for the actions of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Benn: Yes, but if he accepts responsibility for the Order he should be satisfied that the Order has been properly made after proper inquiries, and we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he is so satisfied.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not the least doubt what the Minister's answer to that question would be, but that is different from asking the Minister to give instructions to the Committee.

Captain Wallace: Of course the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has put the matter in the correct light and he has completely "stymied" his more experienced right hon. Friend. The Government, and my right hon. Friend and I, accept responsibility for these Orders, and if we were not satisfied that they had been made after considering all relevant factors, including wages and conditions, we would not take the responsibility of bringing them forward. But as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has pointed out, in a Ruling which was almost a rebuke to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it is not the business of the Board of Trade to tell the Import Duties Committee how they are to carry out the statutory duty laid upon them by this House.
I was also asked about the production and exports of lithopone. The production in 1933 was 30,000 tons, and the latest census figure which we have got, for 1935, is 38,000 tons. The exports were 1,700 tons in 1931. That figure went up to 4,200 tons in 1933, and was 7,800 tons last year, so that, in this case, the position of the export trade is very satisfactory. There may be other detailed questions which I have overlooked. I have done my best to make a note of the information which hon. Members require, and if any hon. Member is not satisfied that he has had full information on the points raised by him, I shall be only too glad to supply it. I hope that after this somewhat long Debate the House will be ready to come to decision on the Orders.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not propose to detain the House unnecessarily, but there

are at least two things which ought to be said about these Orders. My hon. Friends have deprecated the action of the Government in producing at this moment an Order to establish an industry concerning the dangerous nature of which a prima facie case has been established. It has been shown that loss of life has been caused in several cases. It may be that the industry has been very urgent and persistent in seeking for a tariff in order to secure a margin of profit, but that scarcely seems a proposal for the Government to support, considering that the trade is regarded as a dangerous one and may be suppressed to-morrow morning. At least they could have withheld this Order until a report had been submitted by the Home Office Departmental Committee, and then, if the report was negative, they could have produced the Order. Therefore we shall not vote against that particular Order, because we do not want it said that we are campaigning against Japan and voting in favour of Japan.
With regard to the question of wages, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he could not imagine the Tariff Advisory Committee recommending an Order unless they had made adequate investigations into the wages and conditions of the employes. Can he tell us whether he is satisfied that the wages and conditions operating in the various industries referred to in these four Orders are what he thinks they ought to be? I happen to know a huge motor firm in this country which has secured heavy duties against imported motor cars, but which would not have a trade unionist working on the job. No trade unionist need apply, when they had 10, 20, and even 30 per cent. duties against imported articles of a character similar to those which they were making. What guarantee can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have that the wages paid by that firm, heavily protected, were reasonable and fair? He has no guarantee at all. We are not entitled to question him about the motor car or any other industry except those referred to in the four Orders, but before these Orders were produced to the House, did he himself, the Board of Trade, or the Treasury satisfy themselves that the working conditions in these various industries were reasonable and consistent with what this House thinks they ought to be? Surely we are entitled to have an answer to that very simple question.

8.48 p.m.

Captain Wallace: This is a point of major importance. I do not in the least mind the hon. Member raising it—in fact, I am glad he has—but I think we must be certain what we mean by such a question as, "Is the Board of Trade satisfied that the wages are what I think they ought to be?"

Mr. Williams: What this House thinks they ought to be.

Captain Wallace: The answer is perfectly simple. It has never been suggested in any quarter that the procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in granting these Orders should be used, in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the early part of his speech, as a case for hanging something else on. What the Board of Trade have to be satisfied on is that the wages and conditions in these trades, to which these Orders seek to give in this instance only a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty, are reasonable compared with the general standard of comparative trades in the country. I want to be perfectly frank and to say that he must not go away thinking that, because an industry is, in the view of the committee and the Board of Trade, entitled to get a minimum specific duty against low priced imports, there is a case for giving the workers in that industry a standard of wages and conditions superior to those in comparable industries in the country which are not getting those Orders. I think we understand each other quite well, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: It is a serious statement which has just been made by the Minister, that this House must not concern itself with the question whether these articles are made under the vilest conditions.

Captain Wallace: I did not say that.

Mr. Kelly: I know, but that interpretation is to be put upon it easily, that no matter what conditions operate in the case of those working in these factories, this House must concern itself with the profits and the balance-sheet of the company, must help it to make a fortune out of the restriction that is placed upon the trade, but that it must not give one thought to the question whether or not

the workpeople are paid adequately and reasonably, must not hear one word about conditions, about whether these people are working a lengthy week—

Captain Wallace: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that speech if he likes, but I trust the House will realise that it is an absolute and complete travesty of everything that I said.

Mr. Kelly: I do not intend to say anything that would be a travesty of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said. He has had some experience, while at the Admiralty, of having to deal with wages, and I suggest to him that in this House we have a right to consider the standard of life of the people. Are these businesses to be conducted merely with the consideration whether some individuals are making profits? Are we to have no other concern than that? That seems to be the mind of His Majesty's Government, but we have to concern ourselves with what is even more important to the country, and that is the life that is led by the workpeople in these industries, and if these industries do not give their workpeople an adequate income, some security in employment, and the conditions of working that ought to obtain, then we have a right to say that we will not help them in the opportunity that they may have for sweating their employés or forcing them to work under bad conditions. That operates with regard to many of the industries that hon. Members opposite have been helping for a considerable time, and I wish they had considered the life of the workpeople of this country, in many occupations in the Midlands, in Scotland, in the North of England, and even in the South, that is supposed to be so prosperous. What were the conditions operating for the men, women, and young people employed in those industries?
This evening we are doing nothing about those conditions. All that we are concerned about is to keep out articles or products made in other countries at a cheap rate. What are the wages paid in those other countries, and what are the conditions under which they are manufactured? Not a word have we heard about that. We are expected to accept all that comes from that Star Chamber that considers some statement made by somebody but that never consults the workpeople.


Many of us who represent these workpeople would be prepared to oppose the operation of these duties even in the industries that we represent. To-night we are asked to give these employers the chance of making greater profits, and we are told that we must not concern ourselves with the conditions of the workpeople engaged in these industries. I hope the House will vote against this method of carrying on industry to the disadvantage of the workpeople.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to draw the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the wording of two of these Orders to show the way in which the interests of one section of the industry are considered without the other. In the Order relating to celluloid dolls and rattles, we read:
We are satisfied that a further measure of protection, especially in regard to the cheap and medium qualities of these goods, is required to enable the industry to secure and maintain a fair share of the trade at prices which would yield a reasonable margin of profit,
that is, to the manufacturers. In the No. 2 Order dealing with carpets, we read:
In the result, the home manufacturers are finding it difficult to secure a profitable outlet for their production of carpets of the cheaper types.
It is clear that in both these cases the committee in considering these Orders and the Government in adopting them have paid attention to the profits to be made by the manufacturers. We are told that the transactions before the committee are secret and that we must not ask questions about them. There is, at any rate, this disclosure that the committee have given some attention to the question of profits and that the Government have accepted the view of the committee with regard to profits. Do the Government make any inquiry about what are the wages paid before they accept responsibility for promoting an Order? I am not concerned with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says about wages paid in comparable trades, because one trembles to think of the wages paid in some of the trades that are comparable to the celluloid doll trade. Do the Government assume any responsibility at all for the question of wages? I am surprised to hear the attitude adopted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it is within my recollection that the late Prime Minister, now Lord Baldwin, made

some scathing remarks about the way in which one industry that had been highly protected had failed to recognise that the receipt of a protective duty entailed heavy social responsibilities. Now that Lord Baldwin has gone to another place, one can imagine that the spirit which prayed for peace in our time has departed from the Government and that they are ceasing to take the same amount of interest in the social responsibilities of these people who have secured great advantages in the markets owing to the duties that are imposed from time to time. The hon. Members who sign these Orders are junior Whips. They are the junior Whips who get paid, and are not like the junior Whip who sits on the Front Bench at the moment and has to accept the honour as a sufficient additional emolument for the work he has to do in trying to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is one of his flock, into the Lobby in support of protective Orders.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member had better keep to the Orders.

Mr. Ede: I was drawing attention to the fact that two of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have to sign these Orders before they can be submitted to the House, and one would like to know what steps they take, and what qualifications they have for taking them, to ascertain that they are Orders which ought to be submitted to the House. Are the Orders submitted to them and do they simply sign on the dotted line, or do they take some steps to ascertain whether the particulars reported upon are such that the Orders should be granted? Is either of these hon. Members who are Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury charged with the duty of ascertaining what wages are paid in the industry that is seeking protection? It is evident from the fact that different names appear on the different Orders that these hon. Members find the duties somewhat heavy and have to share them lest any two Lords Commissioners should break down under the strain.
The House is entitled to know, before hon. Members who draw additional salaries because of the duties they have to perform sign these Orders, what particular steps they take to satisfy themselves that the Committee were right in submitting the Order for their signature.


I shrewdly suspect that in the intervals of finding where the Government Members are hiding themselves instead of being in the House to listen to the eloquence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, they merely sign on the dotted line as soon as the Order is submitted to them. In view of the serious issue raised to-night, and the fact that, while in certain cases the Orders mention profit, they in no case mention wages, we ought to be assured that some steps are taken by those Members who recommend the Orders to us to make sure that social justice has been done in promoting them.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 11) Order, 1937, dated the twenty-ninth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

WEFT PILE VELVETS.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 12) Order, 1937, dated the thirtieth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

LITHOPONE.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I wish to raise one or two points on this Order. Am I right in supposing that this relates to a Belgian import? I am told that lithopone is one of the most important elements of the manufacture of paint, that it is a non-lead paint. It that is so, all the agitation that goes on in favour of the use of non-lead paint in the interests of the health of the workers will be helped by the use of this lithopone instead of lead paint. It is a matter of special interest from the point of view of the tariff as well. The British trade is doing very well. It

is true, I believe, that there was a slight reduction in output last year, but as compared with 1933 the trade was doing extremely well in 1936, and, therefore, are not entitled to ask for additional protection from the committee. Lithopone, being the basis of paint, is the basis of the export trade in paint. We have a large export trade in paint, and I am told by paint manufacturers that if you cannot get a sale of white paint, of which lithopone is an important component, you do not get a sale of any paint. White paint is what you might call the stock article. If these manufacturers are subjected to a duty upon lithopone it is a blow at the whole of their export trade.
It is agreed in all parts of the House, I think, that we desire to see an increase in our export trade, but this Order would place a duty upon a raw material for an article which is a very important part of our export trade. I therefore want the Minister to tell me whether there will be a drawback. If paint manufacturers here import lithopone and use it in making paint which they afterwards sell abroad, in the hottest competition with foreign paint manufacturers, and have to pay a duty upon the lithopone, then obviously they will be seriously handicapped. I asked the Minister whether they will get a drawback equal to at least 90 per cent. He said, I think, in the course of his speech, that he imagined that would be so, but no doubt he can give us more information, because although we object to the Order, and I hope the House will divide against it, one of our objections would be removed if we were told that a drawback would be given.
We have been told that we must not criticise the Advisory Committee, but we can criticise the Minister. It is quite incredible that this House should have lost all power to criticise the arguments on which new taxes are to be imposed, and, therefore the Minister accepts responsibility for the words in the report of the committee. He must do so. They say, in regard to lithopone, that they will give protection until such time as the lithopone trade may be in an international cartel. That is to say, "We will protect the gangsters until they can come together and protect themselves"—until the sweating of the consumer passes from the home trade, under the protection of a tariff, to the international cartel. I should like to tell the House what a great expert


whose name will be accepted with respect on the other side of the House said on the subject. Speaking of the steel trust Lord Nuffield said:
A perfect ramp; an absolute ramp; big cigars and nothing else.
That is not language which I should venture to use, but it was language used by this very great expert in these matters. Therefore, I should like answers on these points; First, how far is the foreign trade in paint going to be affected by this increased duty; and, second, does the Minister accept the view that nothing is to be done about the creation of an international cartel and about the rise in prices, which will then become entirely a matter for their own decision?

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I feel very much concerned about the items with which we are dealing this evening, and am wondering whether we have an assurance that all those who have taken part in arriving at these decisions are people who are not interested either in the manufacture or the selling of the particular products.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the composition of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Kelly: There are the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as well. I want it to be clear that this is an impartial decision arrived at in the interests of the country, and that those responsible have not come to it because they are themselves interested parties,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is doing now what I have told him that he should not do, and that is inquiring into the composition or the proceedings or the interests of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Kelly: I dealt with the other names which are attached to the Orders.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is doing what he ought not to do. I have made the position perfectly plain.

Mr. Kelly: There are the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, whose names are mentioned; but on that matter I shall not attempt to go past the Ruling of the Chair. The question of the committee is one which we shall have to deal with elsewhere than here, and I am not going to deal with it to-night. I ask the

Minister whether or not we can have the assurance that the people who have to pass these Orders along to the House—the Lords Commissioners' names are here—have no interest of any kind in the manufacture or distribution of these particular products.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Acland: I should like to ask the Minister whether I understood him rightly as saying that he refused to give us any figures of production in the years 1936 and 1937 because it was confidential information. It seems a rather remarkable state of affairs if that is so. I appreciate that the advisory committee may receive a good deal of information which is confidential, but surely a matter of fact, like the production of the home industry, as to which there can be no dispute, ought to be made known to the House before we are asked to decide whether a duty should be granted or not. A hint was dropped by the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) that the figures, if they were given, would show a decrease last year. The figures one has show that in 1933 production was 30,000 tons and in 1935,38,000 tons, a quite handsome rate of increase. As regards the export trade, in 1930 it was 2,000 tons; 1933, 4,000 tons; 1935, 6,000 tons; 1937, very nearly 8,000 tons. None of those figures indicate that the industry is in a bad way.
Sometimes we are told that a tariff should be imposed to rescue an industry which is in a bad way and cannot carry on, but there is no indication that this industry is in a position where it cannot carry on. There have been suggestions of a heavy reduction in the price of the imported article. I put it to the Minister that imported lithopone has fallen by 5 per cent. in price in the last few years, if by no more, and in this very report it says that home prices have been materially reduced. They have been materially reduced, presumably, because methods of manufacture are such that they can be reduced, and if the foreigner is using those methods it is not surprising that foreign prices have fallen along with ours.
I should like to say a sentence or two in support of the suspicions of the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the last paragraph in which it is stated that an international cartel is going to be set up.
Hon. Members opposite really must think out anew what are to be their answers to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The answer which they have always had has been based upon the universal practice of free competition, backed up by bankruptcy to take out the inefficient and to leave only the efficient to function, but now we are entering—here is another small example—into a world from which free competition is eliminated. What is the answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite to those above the Gangway who say that as in the lithopone industry prices are to be fixed not by competition but by some committee, meeting in London, that committee should be composed of representatives of the State acting on behalf of the nation as a whole, and that those prices should not be settled by representatives of capital acting in the interests of the capital involved in the industry? It may be that hon. Members should be careful how far they are going in this process of elimination and in allowing the State to give assistance to the elimination of one more aspect of free competition.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a rather pointed question because we hardly know where we are. What has the production of this trade been during the past year? Up to now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been rather dumb on that point. In the first column of this Order it states that the definition
is intended to describe lithopone and materials of the character of lithopone, a pigment used mainly in the manufacture of paints and linoleum and, to a minor extent, for various other industrial purposes.
I am led to understand that there is a lot of white lead used in this business. Have inquiries been made as to the conditions of the workers in the industry? Generally speaking these tariffs are brought forward not in the interests of the workers but in the interests of the capital invested in the industries concerned, in order that those who have that capital can make what they term reasonable profits. All these orders worship at the shrine of the golden calf.
I am associated with an industry in which, in recent years, numerous committees have been set up to inquire into the conditions of the workers. I was in

this House during the last Parliament when an inquiry was set up into miners' nystagmus and other diseases. That was about three years ago. I believe the findings of that committee have just come to the Department and that we are to have them a little later on. Another committee was set up about silicosis, a most dangerous disease. I will leave this point now, because I see Mr. Deputy-Speaker is getting rather restless. I would ask the Secretary for Mines whether he is taking into account the health of these people. White lead disease is one of the most dangerous, and many men have passed out of time into eternity by reason of it. If no inquiries have been made, it is time that the Minister made inquiries about conditions among the producers of these goods as well as among the sellers of them. Unless more information is given on this point than has been given up to the present time, we shall have to vote against the Order.

9.20 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: This matter concerns my constituency, where we have one of the largest paint works in the country. This Order is serious for this industry, whose raw material is to be taxed. I would raise this matter with some force because the policy of the Government in this and many other directions during the six years in which the Government have been in power has been to hit the export trade of the North-West country very considerably indeed. One of the reasons why there are distressed areas is the repeated blows which have been delivered at the export trades in our great industrial centres. There are two very large paint works, one in my constituency and one just across the river. They are excellent employers of labour and pay excellent wages. The one in my constituency is the only one which was able, during the first year of the depression, to give any steady employment. It has maintained trade union conditions and has won everywhere an excellent reputation.
It is the type of firm that should be encouraged. I was once shown around the firm and I went to some extent into its workings. I found that it was working under conditions of most intense competition all over the world. It is an international export trade, and it has to enter into competition not only with labour


very much cheaper than its own but against Government-subsidised industries in other parts of the world. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary the position in regard to this industry, which is in an area which the Government have hit very badly. It is a good firm with a sound export trade, maintaining its position in the face of great difficulty, but instead of trying to help it the Government have come along and actually proposed that one of its important raw materials should be subjected to taxation. It seems a little grotesque that on one side the Government should put up a Minister to appeal to new industries, many of them quite mushroom in character, to go into the new trading estates, which are being provided at very great expense to the taxpayer, and are giving every kind of inducement to those industries, including requests to our towns, already very heavily rate-burdened, to reduce their rates to such trades, while, on the other hand, another Minister is sent forward with an import duty which will definitely hamper an existing trade which is maintaining one of our very badly-needed export industries.
As those were not enough, the bank chairman and the other experts who advise the Government, are at the present moment showing how necessary it is that the export trade should be facilitated. We are being asked to pay too high a price in order that a small industry, in this case the lithopone industry, should be able, having pulled the necessary number of strings, to get a special tariff to itself. If the Minister came before us and gave the whole facts and said, "There is this special reason why this duty should be levied," then at least we could weigh up the supposed advantages to the lithopone industry (which seems to be doing very well) against the disadvantage of increasing the price of raw materials to an old-established export trade. I submit that the Minister has done nothing of the kind, in fact, if I may pay him compliments, he is a perfect artist in vagueness. He has all the vague phrases: He "would find it difficult to imagine" that the Advisory Committee would do something or other, "he could not think it possible," "he would be very much surprised to learn."
Really, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were arguing this in a court of law he would find it very difficult to get

away with such phrases; I think it would be said that that was not evidence. And I submit that when Parliament is examining an importy duty that is going to have a double effect and hit an established export trade we should at least be given some facts and be told by the Government the real reason why they are doing this thing—if they dare give the real reason, and if the whole thing is not a ramp from beginning to end. All that happens is that the Minister comes here and uses the sledge hammer of his automatic majority, and says, "Really it does not matter; we can allow these people to talk, and we have to listen to them, poor things. It is a frightful bore, but all it means is that we shall be a quarter of an hour late with the next Order." That is not treating the House fairly, it is not treating fairly those of our manufacturers who are put in a difficult position, and I hope that my party will register its protest both against the Minister's attitude and against the proposed import duty.

9.28 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I want to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to a peculiar feature of this Order. I have had many experiences of these import duties Orders, and up to the present I have always found them in one particular form. They have always gone on the line that the duty is imposed mainly to protect British industry and to give more employment. But, for the first time I believe—it is true, there is one precedent in the iron and steel industry, which is not an exact equivalent—a new principle is laid down. I hope hon. Members opposite will give some particular study to page 2 of the Advisory Committee's report, where this extraordinary doctrine is put forward:
It is possible that, in due course, an international agreement between the chief European manufacturers, in regard to which negotiations have been proceeding for some time past, will be concluded, and in that event we shall be prepared to consider whether the proposed duty should be reduced.
I am not quite sure that the Commissioners were not exceeding their powers, because under the original Act two factors have to be considered—first, that the industry needs protection owing to unfair competition and, second, that the duty is not going to interfere with the supply of essential raw materials for our industries. But this is a new doctrine. This is a direct stimulus to the formation of an international cartel. There are one


or two Liberal Members supporting the Government. There is the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness)—I do not know exactly whether he is a Commissioner to the Treasury or on the high road to that position, but he is proud to be inspired by Liberal traditions, though I understand he is prepared to put them in cold storage to meet a national emergency. Still, it is part of his doctrine that he is still in principle, although not in practice, a free trader. I should like to know whether it is part of the policy of the National Liberals—I emphasise the word "National"—to use tariffs, not in the interests of the nation or of our own industries, but in order to form international trusts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been reading this report, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing in it which shows that the putting forward of these proposals would lead to a cartel.

Mr. Benn: No, but they do indicate that the Order has essentially in view the fact that they believe a cartel is to be formed, and if we are not to be allowed to discuss the report of the committee itself, it is restricting the Debate toomuch.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not so read the report. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again. What it means is that it is possible that a certain thing may be done, in which case the committee would be prepared to consider taking a certain course.

Sir P. Harris: But is not it reasonable to assume that we are putting on this duty in order to encourage the formation of an international cartel?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It seems to me rather a long way round, I am bound to say. It had not occurred to me, and I do not see that that is stated in the report.

Sir P. Harris: Yes, but the ways of these Commissioners are tortuous. This is significant of a new dispensation, and perhaps the Minister could enlighten us. Is it the policy of the Government to use these duties as instruments to encourage the formation of international cartels? If so, we know where we are. Perhaps my hon. Friends who are working for national, as opposed to international, interests, if they think that is the policy

of the Government, will reconsider their position. However, I do think that this Order is significant as suggesting a new policy and a new purpose, and ought to be examined very closely.

Captain Wallace: The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), who came in in the latter stages of the Debate, accused me of being casual and of a lack of imagination.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. I have been present in this House during the whole time that this question of lithopone has been discussed. I have never moved from this House.

Captain Wallace: Then the hon. Lady did not, perhaps, know that we had an interesting Debate before that on the general question. Of course, I do not for a moment wish to pit my imagination against the hon. Lady's, because I think some powers of imagination are needed to make the astonishing statement that this Government has done nothing for the North-East coast. All that I am going to do now is to reply to some specific points which were very succinctly put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked, first of all, what were the chief sources of these imports. The answer is, Belgium and Germany. He asked, secondly, whether there was a drawback scheme in the tariff. The answer is that there is not at the present moment, but, if people feel that their export trade would be helped by a drawback, they have simply to go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and make a case for it if they can.

Mr. Benn: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be mistaken. He says, of course, that if the House agrees there will be a drawback, but manufacturers have to face international competition with this swingeing duty on their raw material.

Captain Wallace: These people are competing, according to the right hon. Gentleman, under such difficulties with this swingeing duty—which, I may point out, is not being increased under the Order, but is simply being supplied with an alternative—exported in 1935, in the form of paints and painters' enamels, which are the only figures I have, 457,000 cwts., and that went up in 1937 to 547,000 cwts. With regard to the point made by


the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who came to the conclusion that I was "off side"; as a matter of fact it was he that was "off side," because white lead is not a component of lithopone, and in fact lithopone is used as an alternative when people do not want to use white lead. As to the question of cartels, I doubt very much whether I should be right in pursuing it very far, but the point I would like to make is that British prices to the consumers in these manufacturing and exporting industries have been reduced as a result of the tariff. The home manufacturers of lithopone have been enabled to produce on a bigger scale and more effectively, and they held three-quarters of the home market in 1935. But since then there has been this alarming increase in imports. Imports from all countries have gone up from 10,381 tons in 1935 to 15,639 tons in 1937—

Mr. Acland: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figure for 1934? He has taken the very lowest figure.

Captain Wallace: The imports have gone up 50 per cent. The point made by the Committee with regard to cartels is, I imagine, a very simple one, namely, that if, as the result of an agreement between manufacturers abroad and in this country for the purpose of what I may call assisting orderly marketing, the home market was saved from the competition of the low-priced article, the necessity for the duty might disappear. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who, I know, hates these duties with an almost fanatical hatred, should look even a potential gift horse in the mouth when he sees in this Order a possible reduction of the duty.

Mr. Acland: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give no answer on the

question of the production in 1936 and 1937?

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what interpretation the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), who signed this Order, put upon the fourth paragraph of the Committee's Report? I notice that the Committee describe themselves as:
Your Lordships' obedient Servants.
We have been told earlier this evening that those servants cannot be instructed, and I do not know to what they are obedient when they describe themselves as obedient servants. Clearly, however, this fourth paragraph of their Report must have had some meaning to the two Lords Commissioners who were asked to sign the Order. In view of the experience that has overtaken another industry in which a cartel has been established, namely, the complete withdrawal of its commodity, sometimes, from the people who desire to use it in this country, it would be interesting to know whether these two Members of the Government who signed the Order on behalf of the Government had any consultation with responsible Members of the Government before they afforded this opportunity for the setting up of an umbrella under which people might meet together to try to arrange one of these cartels.

Question put,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 127.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[9.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bracken, B.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Briscos, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Christie, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Assheton, R.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Clarry. Sir Heginald


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Butcher, H. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butler, R. A.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Colfox, Major W. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Beechman, N. A.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)


Blair, Sir R.
Cary, R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Boulton, W. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Crooke, Sir J. S.




Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cross, R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Rowlands, G.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kimball, L.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davits, Major Sir C. F. (Yeovil)
Lees-Jones, J.
Salt, E. W.


Dawson, Sir P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, M. R. A.


De Chair, S. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Danville, Alfred
Levy, T.
Sandys, E. D.


Dodd, J. S.
Lewis, O.
Savery, Sir Servington


Doland, G. F.
Lipson, D. L.
Scott, Lord William


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Lyons, A. M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spans, W. P.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.
Storey, S.


Findlay, Sir E.
Maitland, A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Fleming, E. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Markham, S. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grimton, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Moreing, A. C.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hambro, A. V.
Munro, p.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hannah, I. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nieolson, Hon. H. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hepworth, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Higgs, W. F.
Porritt, R. W.
Wise, A. R.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
Wragg, H.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hulbet, N. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)



Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) NOES.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Herbert and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Dobbie, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Banfield, J. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A. J.
Foot, D. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, J.
Gallacher, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bellenger, F. d.
Gardner, B. W.
Kirby, B. V.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Benson, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lathan, G.


Bevan, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lawson, J. J.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Leach, W.


Bromfield, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leslie, J. R.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffiths. J. (Llanelly)
Logan. D. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Groves, T. E.
Lunn, W.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cape, T.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La T.


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Chater, D.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maclean, N.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cocks. F. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mathers, G.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Muff, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hopkin, D.
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.







Oliver, G. H.
Sexton, T. M.
Viant, S. P.


Owen, Major G.
Shinwell, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Pearson, A.
Silkin, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Silverman, S. S.
Watson, W. McL.


Price, M. P.
Simpson, F. B.
White, H. Graham


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Ridley, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Riley, B.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thurtle, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Tinker, J. J.



Seely, Sir H. M.
Tomlinson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938. dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

CARPETS.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 127.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[9.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Culverwell, C. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keeling, E. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Dawson, Sir P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Apsley, Lord
De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denville, Alfred
Kimball, L.


Assheton, R.
Dodd, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Doland, G. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duggan, H. J.
Levy, T.


Bernays, R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lewis, O.


Blair, Sir R.
Eastwood, J. F.
Lipson, D. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, A. M.


Bracken, B.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Findlay, Sir E.
McCoroquodale, M. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bull, B. B.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Burghley, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
McKie. J. H.


Butler, R. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Maitland, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Markham, S. F.


Cary, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hambro, A. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Christie, J. A.
Hannah, I. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moreing, A. C.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Nall, Sir J.


Colfax, Major W. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepworth, J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Higgs, W. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Peake, O.


Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peat, C. U.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cross, R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Crassley, A. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Porritt, R. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunter, T.
Radford, E. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rankin, Sir R.




Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Wakefield, W. W.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spens. W. P.
Warrender, Sir V


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Storey, S.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Rowlands, G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Salt, E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, M. R. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wise, A. R.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sandys, E. D.
Tate, Mavis G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Savery, Sir Servington
Taylor, C. S- (Eastbourne)
Wragg, H.


Scott, Lord William
Touche. G. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.



Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Turton, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Munro and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. (Consult)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris. Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday. A.
Ridley, G.


Ban held, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellender, F. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Seely. Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rofherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby. B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Stratus, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davits, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Butler.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain employments to be insurable in like manner as employment in agriculture.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the second "and," in line 18, and insert:
Every employment specified in the Schedule to this Act that is an employment specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall, on and after the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be an insurable employment for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, unless it is an excepted employment.

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might help the House if I said a word about each Amendment. In fact, almost all these Amendments are of a drafting character. This particular Amendment is introduced so as to avoid bringing in anyone normally not insurable under the procedure of this Act. The sort of people this Amendment will exclude are those who have an income limit over and above £250 a year and those who are independent of a contract of service.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment is one to clarify the position and that it adds nothing to the Clause and takes nothing away from the Bill. These are small Amendments—I have looked at them personally—and there is nothing to which we object. This is a very complicated Bill, containing several subjects which are usually outside Unemployment Bills, and if the hon. Gentleman will give a short explanation of the Amendments, although there is not much in them, we shall be very much obliged.

CLAUSE 4.—(Treasury advances to Unemployment Fund.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 34, after "under" insert "the foregoing provisions of."

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment looks rather more technical, but is, like the last one, an

effort to clarify the position. The House will remember that Clause 4 of the Bill, Sub-section (1) gives the power to reborrow in the event of the Unemployment Fund not being in a position to meet its liabilities owing to reserves having been used in redemption of debt. That is a position which we do not wish to arise. I do not wish to go into the whole controversy of the Bill at this stage nor would it be in order, but I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite and other hon. Members interested in this Bill that it is that with which Clause 4, Sub-section (1) deals. If hon. Members who are interested in the subject will look at Sub-section (3), they will see that this new Amendment inserts the safeguarding words, "the foregoing provisions of this Section," therefore, confining the operation of Sub-section (3) to the foregoing provisions. These are Subsections (1) and (2). Before these words were put in Sub-section (3) which has reference to the proposal to create terminable annuities—hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the description of them given on a previous occasion—might have been taken to apply to all the Subsections of this Clause. That would have been undesirable because Subsection (1) is a much bigger financial operation. This Amendment limits the application of Sub-section (3) to the foregoing Sub-sections and does not refer to Sub-section (4) which is more in the nature of a temporary transaction in the form of bookkeeping. If the House will look at Subsection (4) they will see that such a complicated and wide procedure as the creation of terminable annuities is inadvisable in cases where moneys have to be repaid as a result of the Unemployment Fund being insufficient to meet its liabilities under Sub-section (4). Therefore hon. Members will see that this is a wise provision and in fact clarifies the provisions of the Bill in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that although this Amendment makes the meaning of the Clause clear, it seems a technical and Privilege Amendment.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The House will now understand what I meant when I said that this was a complicated Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has given an explanation which, although it was quite


accurate, will not have made this matter very simple to the House. Having spent a very painful hour going through these Amendments to see what they are all about, I can appreciate his position. It is true, as he said, that on this and the previous Clause there was a good deal of contention in the House when the Bill was before us. This is the Clause, with the other Clause, for which the Bill was originally brought before the House. The previous Clause deals with the question of the payment of the debt. The principal Act lays it down that the debt had to be paid by instalments under certain conditions within a certain period. The fund is in such a condition that the Minister had to bring in a Bill to give himself the right to take some of the funds at his disposal for the repayment of the debt in excess of what is laid down in the principal Act. We had very strong objections to that, but, as the hon. Member said, we should not be entitled to enter into a discussion of that matter to which we objected at the time.
Under this Clause 4, in case the Statutory Committee overpays itself from the money at its disposal, so that there is a shortage of funds with which to meet the obligations to those who contribute towards the fund, it is made clear in very explicit terms how that money is to be paid into the fund and under what conditions it is to be returned. I gather from what the Parliamentary Secretary says that if the words, "The foregoing provisions of," were not put in, the conditions would apply to the whole of the four Sub-sections instead of to three. Therefore, the Amendment is a safeguarding Amendment to keep the first three Sub-sections clear of the fourth, which deals with the fund in a different way and under separate conditions. We have no objection to the Amendment.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendments as to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, after "court" insert:
, or to any person who is discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There was a certain amount of discussion on the subject of fraudulent enlistment, and questions were asked as to what it really meant. We have investigated the matter very closely and an Amendment was moved in another place referring to the terms of fraudulent enlistment. The effect of the Amendment is to extend the rights conferred by the Bill. That is a concession, which improves the conditions for those who will benefit by this particular Clause. Those men affected who have committed the offence of fraudulent enlistment will now receive a credit, subject to six weeks disqualification instead of receiving no credit. I think hon. Members will realise that this is an improvement on the original Bill.
Let me explain a little further how we came to this decision. We found that in the Army and the Air Force the term "fraudulent enlistment" has a somewhat technical significance, but I need not trouble the House with an explanation of it. It means, roughly, that a man enlists in one section of the Forces and then re-enlists in another in what is described as a fraudulent way. We came to the conclusion that that particular offence is no worse than the offences referred to under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act or the Air Force Act, and, therefore, it was unfair to class the man who had fraudulently enlisted in the category of deserters or recruits not finally approved, which deprived him of any credit and, therefore, of benefit. We have, therefore, reduced the status of the offence of fraudulent enlistment from that of deserter to that of one convicted of an offence under one of the particular Acts to which I have referred and have thereby reduced the penalty inflicted upon a person who had fraudulently enlisted. I hope that this examination will show that this is a concession and that the position is thereby improved for the man who had fraudulently enlisted in the Forces.

Mr. White: Can the hon. Member say whether the period of six weeks is fixed or varied?

Mr. Butler: It is fixed.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Again, I agree with the hon. Member that this is an improvement upon the Bill as it left the House. I do not understand how it came to pass that the term "fraudulent enlistment" was left out of the Bill as originally drafted, because I understood that the object was to give credit to people who had been excluded under one section of the principal Act. What has been done is simply to right what has been an obvious wrong. The question of the loss of benefit for six weeks comes up afterwards on another Amendment, and we shall have something to say on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: A Special Entry will be made.

Lords Amendment: In line 30, leave out from "benefit" to "during," in line 32.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The reason for this Amendment is to deal with an anomaly which we did not perceive during the passage of the Bill. It deals with the case of a man who had been in civil employment before he entered the Forces and who while he was in civil employment had accrued contributions sufficient to entitle him to benefit when he left the Forces. I would ask the House to picture the case of the man who had accrued this benefit in civil life, who then entered the Forces and was convicted of one of the particular misdemeanours under one of the Acts referred to in Sub-section (2). He would then, clearly, be subject to six weeks' disqualification, but having accrued credit in civil life he would have been in the anomalous position that he would have been able to draw benefit, whereas a man in civil life convicted of a similar offence under ordinary civil procedure would have been subject to this disqualification. Therefore in order to put this case on all fours with that of a soldier who has been convicted of an offence we thought it fairer to abolish this anomaly and treat them in the same way as a man who has

been convicted of a similar offence whilst serving in the Forces. The Amendment is to remove an anomaly and treats a man convicted of an offence while in the Forces in exactly the same way as a man in civil life.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: We have no objection to the Amendment, but at the same time we thought the Minister was going to give some consideration to the point we put when the Bill was going through this House. In certain conditions men are going to lose their benefit for six weeks. It is true that the Amendment gives credit and takes into consideration the position of a man in civil life. But why is a man who commits some offence while in the Forces to be treated in an entirely different way from a man in ordinary civil life? If a man in civil life commits an offence he loses his benefit but he can go to the court of referees who may, if they wish, stop his benefit for less than six weeks. That is a condition of which not very much notice is taken by the Chairman of the Court of Referees as a rule but the fact is that it is still the law. Section 27 of the principal Acts says:
An insured contributor who loses his employment through his misconduct or who leaves his employment without just cause shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or such shorter period as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
Why should a man in civil life who commits an offence be deprived of his benefit for a period of less than six weeks but a soldier cannot be deprived of his benefit for a less period than six weeks? I do not see why a man who has left the Service and who commits some offence should not have the same right to go to the court of referees or the umpire and make an appeal as a man in civil life. I drew the attention of the Minister to this point in Committee and I cannot understand why some steps have not been taken to deal with this matter. I take this opportunity of registering my protest, which I am sure would be endorsed by the House generally if there was a free expression of opinion.
At a time when we are giving all the encouragement we can to young men to join the Army, when we are elevating soldiers to the status of citizens and giving them all the freedom that is possible consonant with their service, it seems com-


pletely wrong that these men should not have equality of law with men in civilian life before the courts of referees. I am very sorry that the Minister has not taken the opportunity of dealing with this matter. In the form in which the Amendment is drawn, it is very difficult to register a protest on the matter, but the principle involved is one on which I am sure all hon. Members will wish to register their protest, at least in the House, even if they cannot in the Division Lobby.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, I must certainly register my protest against what I consider to be the taking away from a person of rights which he at present enjoys. From the point of view of the soldier and his profession, I should have protested had it not been generally accepted that there had been a modification, but that the six weeks' disqualification for the offences mentioned must continue. Nevertheless, if the civilian has already established his claim as a contributor to the fund, surely whatever credits may be standing in his name should fully entitle him, even though the offence be the same, to appear before the court of referees in connection with the civilian rights which he has already established. If that is not the case, I can foresee this dangerous principle being applied more widely.
If this Amendment is passed, a civilian having full credits standing in his name, who commits an offence by fraudulently entering the Army, will be penalised not only in the terms of his enlistment, but will have the six weeks' disqualification applied as far as his civilian rights are concerned. If that is so, what is there to stop the principle from being generally applied, and, in the event of an offence which, under the present Unemployment Act, temporarily disqualifies a man but gives him the right to appear before the court of referees, for it to be said that any misdemeanour, any rebellion against the authority of the factory or workshop or its regulations, will automatically carry with it a six weeks' disqualification? That is the principle of which I am afraid, and I maintain that the rights already established should still stand to the credit of the individual, although the offence committed may be one in relation to his enlistment in the Forces.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: In addition to the points which have been made by my hon. Friends, there is being carried into the Measure the double penalty that is now being imposed upon people, and the Unemployment Insurance Act is being used as a means of penalising people because they have committed what some people call an offence. The seaman, the marine, the soldier or the airman will be placed in this position. Whether he is sentenced by a court of the Forces or a civil court, in addition to serving that sentence, he is now to be forced to suffer another penalty by being deprived of his benefit for six weeks. A civil court might penalise him for something which is not a criminal offence. Many people are tried in these days for motor offences and in some cases the penalty is that of imprisonment. It may be a monetary penalty. In any case something more will now be imposed in addition to what the court imposes. It is too late now for this matter to be further considered in relation to the Bill but I hope it will be recognised that this proposal is unjust to men in the Services.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: It is difficult to allow this occasion to pass without offering congratulations to the Government on the meticulous care with which their supporters in another place examine these Measures with a view to avoiding the wastage of public money through anomalies. What must happen before this particular anomaly could arise? First, the man would have to be employed in civilian life sufficiently long to enable him to acquire unemployment insurance rights. Then he must either have lost or given up his job in civilian life without first exhausting those rights. That in itself is sufficiently unlikely but when that has happened he has then to serve in the Forces and to commit one or other of these offences. As a penalty for that he is to be compelled to leave the service. When that unlikely combination of four unlikely things has occurred, then the other place carefully say that the man shall not be allowed to profit thereby as compared with another man who is not in the Service.
So anxious are they to prevent any anomaly by which any advantage might be obtained by such a man, that they do not hesitate to create anomalies against him. When all that I have described has


occurred, the man as a result of this Amendment will not be placed in the same position as he would have been in had he committed a corresponding offence, not being a member of the Forces. He is in a worse position—slightly but definitely worse. Whereas in civil life the referees would have had discretion as to whether they would impose the maximum penalty or not, in this case another place have taken special care to render the man's position a little worse than it would have been in civil life. They insist that he shall suffer the maximum penalty in every case, whereas had he remained in civil life he may or may not have suffered the maximum penalty. The Government are to be congratulated on the microscopical examination that their Measures get in another place to preserve the public purse, and I would express the hope that some day there may be equal care shown and as exact a precision in the analysis of Government Measures to see that anomalies, of which no doubt there are thousands now, which inure to the advantage of the Treasury and against the interests of the citizen shall be as promptly, carefully, and overwhelmingly secured.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 16, after Clause 6, insert:

NEW CLAUSE—(Provisions as to Northern Ireland.)

(1) Any seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil court, shall be subject to the like disqualification for receiving benefit under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance in force in Northern Ireland as is imposed in relation to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, by Sub-section (3) of Section thirty of the principal Act; and the provisions of the said Sub-section (3) as to evidence of such discharge or dismissal shall apply for the purposes of such enactments as they apply in relation to claims for benefit under the said Acts.

(2) The provisions of this Act other than this Section shall not extend to Northern Ireland save in so far as they affect the provisions of the principal Act which extend to Northern Ireland.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the next are drafting Amendments to apply to Northern Ireland the Amendment of the principal Act contained in Clause 5 (2), as it left this House.

Mr. Kelly: Why is it that we are asked to apply this Clause and no other portion of this Bill to Northern Ireland? It is very strange that the one application of this to Northern Ireland is to ensure that the penalty is imposed upon these men that they may be deprived of benefit.

10.33 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: How does it come about that the Amendment from another place, on page 5, line 20, which this House has already accepted as one of the Lords Amendments, is not reproduced in the Sub-section referring to Northern Ireland, so that when the Bill becomes a Statute the two Sub-sections will not run parallel, by reason of the omission from the Northern Ireland Clause of the words which have been inserted into the Bill as a whole?

Mr. Butler: The reason is that this Amendment is applied to the Bill as we have amended it and reproduces in all the necessary parts provisions similar to what they are in this country for Northern Ireland.

Colonel Nathan: As far as I can gather, the two Sub-sections are the same except that there is omitted from the Subsection relating to Northern Ireland the words:
or to any person who is discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment.
which have been inserted in Sub-section (2) of Clause 5.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Butler: I am assured that this Bill will apply in all fairness to Northern Ireland. I cannot say any more than that, but I have had that assurance. I see the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am sure that this is an equitable arrangement for Northern Ireland. As regards the point of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), I cannot accept that this Bill will have the effect that he makes out. If he will refer to the words of my right hon. Friend in moving the Second Reading, he will see that these provisions are an improvement on the existing Statutes and make things better for the man who leaves the Service. Under the old provisions, if a man left


the Service at his own will, he was deprived of the right of benefit. The effect of this Measure will be to create an improved position for the man on leaving the Service.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I am satisfied that provision is an improvement. Sub-section 5 (2) deals with Sub-section (7) of Section 96 of the principal Act, which says:
Nothing in this Section shall apply to any seaman, marine, soldier or airman who is a deserter or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act or the Air Force Act, or by any civil court, or to any person who is discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment.
That Sub-section deprives the soldier who is in trouble of the benefits of his contributions. What is being done by Clause 5 is to omit that Sub-section from the Statute and to credit a man with his contributions irrespective of any trouble he may have been in. This Amendment applies that benefit to the soldiers concerned in Northern Ireland.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, citation and extent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 37, leave out Sub-section (2).

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.